Uploaded byswiss1234
XLS, PDF6 views

Routine data quality assessment tool june 2008

This document provides instructions for conducting a Routine Data Quality Assessment (RDQA) to evaluate program or project data quality. It outlines a 6-step process: 1) determine the purpose, 2) select levels and sites, 3) identify indicators and data sources, 4) conduct site visits, 5) review outputs and findings, and 6) develop a strengthening plan. The checklist is meant to assess data quality and systems at various levels, from service delivery points to central aggregation sites. Results are summarized using graphs and an action plan is developed to identify weaknesses and areas for improvement.

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
1 / 123
2 / 123
3 / 123
4 / 123
5 / 123
6 / 123
7 / 123
8 / 123
9 / 123
10 / 123
11 / 123
12 / 123
13 / 123
14 / 123
15 / 123
16 / 123
17 / 123
18 / 123
19 / 123
20 / 123
21 / 123
22 / 123
23 / 123
24 / 123
25 / 123
26 / 123
27 / 123
28 / 123
29 / 123
30 / 123
31 / 123
32 / 123
33 / 123
34 / 123
35 / 123
36 / 123
37 / 123
38 / 123
39 / 123
40 / 123
41 / 123
42 / 123
43 / 123
44 / 123
45 / 123
46 / 123
47 / 123
48 / 123
49 / 123
50 / 123
51 / 123
52 / 123
53 / 123
54 / 123
55 / 123
56 / 123
57 / 123
58 / 123
59 / 123
60 / 123
61 / 123
62 / 123
63 / 123
64 / 123
65 / 123
66 / 123
67 / 123
68 / 123
69 / 123
70 / 123
71 / 123
72 / 123
73 / 123
74 / 123
75 / 123
76 / 123
77 / 123
78 / 123
79 / 123
80 / 123
81 / 123
82 / 123
83 / 123
84 / 123
85 / 123
86 / 123
87 / 123
88 / 123
89 / 123
90 / 123
91 / 123
92 / 123
93 / 123
94 / 123
95 / 123
96 / 123
97 / 123
98 / 123
99 / 123
100 / 123
101 / 123
102 / 123
103 / 123
104 / 123
105 / 123
106 / 123
107 / 123
108 / 123
109 / 123
110 / 123
111 / 123
112 / 123
113 / 123
114 / 123
115 / 123
116 / 123
117 / 123
118 / 123
119 / 123
120 / 123
121 / 123
122 / 123
123 / 123
Routine Data Quality Assessment (RDQA) Checklist to Assess Program/Project Data Quality Number of Regional Aggregation Sites þÿ1 Number of District Aggregation Sites þÿ1 Number of Service Delivery Sites þÿ1 Version: Jan 2010 Important notes for the use of this spreadsheet: 1. In order to use the Routine Data Quality Assessment tool you will need to ensure that your 'macro security' is set to something less than 'high'. With the spreadsheet open, go to the 'Tools' pull-down menu and select 'Macro', then 'Security'. Select 'medium'. Close Excel and re-open the file. When you open the file the next time you will have to select 'Enable Macros' for the application to work as designed. 2. On the START Page (this page), please select number of intermediate aggregation sites (IAS) and Service Delivery Points (SDPs) that you plan to review from the dropdown lists above. IAS are typically the district level health unit of the Ministry of Health. START Page 1
B – INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THE RDQA 1. Determine Purpose The RDQA checklist can be used for: T Initial assessment of M&E systems established by new implementing partners (or in decentralized systems) to collect, manage and report data. I Routine supervision of data management and reporting systems and data quality at various levels. For example, routine supervision visits may include checking on a certain time period worth of data (e.g. one day, one week or one month) at the service site level, whereas periodic assessments (e.g. quarterly, biannually or annually) could be carried out at all levels to assess the functioning of the entire Program/project’s M&E system. t Periodic assessment by donors of the quality of data being provided to them (this use of the DQA could be more frequent and more streamlined than official data quality audits that use the DQA for Auditing) but less frequent than routine monitoring of data. D Preparation for a formal data quality audit. The RDQA is flexible for all of these uses. Countries and programs are encouraged to adapt the checklist to fit local program contexts. 2. Level/Site Selection Select levels and sites to be included (depending on the purpose and resources available). Once the purpose has been determined, the second step in the RDQA is to decide what levels of the data-collection and reporting system will be included in the assessment - service sites, intermediate aggregation levels, and/or central M&E unit. The levels should be determined once the appropriate reporting levels have been identified and “mapped” (e.g., there are 100 sites providing the services in 10 districts. Reports from sites are sent to districts, which then send aggregated reports to the M&E Unit). In some cases, the data flow will include more than one intermediate level (e.g. regions, provinces or states or multiple levels of program organizations). 3. Identify indicators, data sources and reporting period. The RDQA is designed to assess the quality of data and underlying systems related to indicators that are reported to programs or donors. It is necessary to select one or more indicators – or at least program areas – to serve as the subject of the RDQA. This choice will be based on the list of reported indicators. For example, a program focusing on treatment for HIV may report indicators of numbers of people on ART. Another program may focus on meeting the needs of orphans or vulnerable children, therefore the indicators for that program would be from the OVC program area. A malaria program might focus on providing insecticide-treated bed nets (ITN) or on treating people for malaria – or on both of those activities. 4. Conduct site visits. During the site visits, the relevant sections of the appropriate checklists in the Excel file are filled out (e.g. the service site checklist at service sites, etc). These checklists are completed following interviews of relevant staff and reviews of site documentation. Using the drop down lists on the HEADER page of this workbook, select the appropriate number of Intermediate Aggregation Levels (IAL) and Service Delivery Points (SDP) to be reviewed. The appropriate number of worksheets will automatically appear in the RDQA workbook (up to 12 SDP and 4 IALs). 5. Review outputs and findings. The RDQAoutputs need to be reviewed for each site visited. Site-specific summary findings in the form of recommendations are noted at each site visited. The RDQA checklists exist in MS Excel format and responses can be entered directly into the spreadsheets on the computer. Alternatively, the checklists can be printed and completed by hand. When completed electronically, a dashboard produces graphics of summary statistics for each site and level of the reporting system. The dashboard displays two (2) graphs for each site visited: - A spider-graph displays qualitative data generated from the assessment of the data-collection and reporting system and can be used to prioritize areas for improvement. - A bar-chart shows the quantitative data generated from the data verifications; these can be used to plan for data quality improvement. In addition, a 'Global Dashboard' shows statistics aggregated across and within levels to highlight overall strengths and weaknesses in the reporting system. The Global Dashboard shows a spider graph for qualitative assessments and a bar chart for quantitative assessments as above. In addition, stengths and weakness of the reporting system are displayed as dimensions of data quality in a 100% stacked bar chart. For this analysis questions are grouped by the applicable dimension of data quality (e.g. accuracy or reliability) and the number of responses by type of response (e.g. 'Yes - completely', 'Partly' etc.) are plotted as a percentage of all responses. A table of survey questions and their associated dimensions of data quality can be found on the 'Dimensions of data quality' tab in this workbook. 6. Develop a system’s strengthening plan, including follow-up actions. The final output of the RDQA is an action plan for improving data quality which describes the identified strengthening measures, the staff responsible, the timeline for completion, resources required and follow-up. Using the graphics and the detailed comments for each question, weak performing functional areas of the reporting system can be identified. Program staff can then outline strengthening measures (e.g. training, data reviews), assign responsibilities and timelines and identify resources using the Action Plan tab in this workbook. INSTRUCTIONS Page 2
C – BACKGROUND INFORMATION – RDQA Country: Name of Program/project: Indicator Reviewed: Reporting Period Verified: Assessment Team: Name Title Email Primary contact: M&E Management Unit at Central Level Name of Site Facility Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1- Regional Level Aggregation Sites Name of Site Facility Code Region Region Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1 District Level Aggregation Sites Name of Site Facility Code District District Code Region Region Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1 Service Delivery Points (SDPs) Name of Site Facility Code District District Code Region Region Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1 Information_Page Page 3
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 1 Page 4
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 1 Page 5
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and 1.00 National Reporting Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 1 Page 6
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 2 Page 7
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 2 Page 8
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 2 Page 9
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 3 Page 10
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 3 Page 11
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 3 Page 12
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 4 Page 13
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 4 Page 14
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 4 Page 15
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 5 Page 16
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 5 Page 17
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 5 Page 18
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 6 Page 19
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 6 Page 20
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 6 Page 21
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 7 Page 22
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 7 Page 23
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 7 Page 24
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 8 Page 25
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 8 Page 26
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 8 Page 27
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 9 Page 28
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 9 Page 29
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 9 Page 30
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 10 Page 31
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 10 Page 32
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 10 Page 33
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 11 Page 34
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 11 Page 35
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 11 Page 36
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 12 Page 37
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 12 Page 38
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 12 Page 39
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 13 Page 40
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 13 Page 41
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 13 Page 42
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 14 Page 43
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 14 Page 44
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 14 Page 45
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 15 Page 46
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 15 Page 47
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 15 Page 48
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 16 Page 49
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 16 Page 50
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 16 Page 51
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 17 Page 52
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 17 Page 53
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 17 Page 54
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 18 Page 55
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 18 Page 56
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 18 Page 57
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 19 Page 58
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 19 Page 59
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 19 Page 60
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 20 Page 61
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 20 Page 62
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 20 Page 63
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 21 Page 64
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 21 Page 65
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 21 Page 66
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 22 Page 67
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 22 Page 68
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 22 Page 69
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 23 Page 70
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 23 Page 71
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 23 Page 72
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 24 Page 73
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 24 Page 74
Part 3: Recommendations for the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 24 Page 75
Service Delivery Site Summary Statistics Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Site Summary Service Site Summary 1 M&E Structure, 0.9 Functions and Capabilities 0.8 3 0.7 2 0.6 Indicator Number of Sites Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System 0.5 Guidelines 0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0 <=70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 >130 Percent Accuracy Service Site Summary Page 76
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 1 Page 77
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 1 Page 78
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 1 Page 79
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 2 Page 80
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 2 Page 81
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 2 Page 82
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 3 Page 83
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 3 Page 84
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 10 9 8 7 6 800% II- Indicator 5 V - Links with Definitions and 4 National Reporting 3 Reporting System Guidelines 2 1 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 3 Page 85
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 4 Page 86
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 4 Page 87
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 4 Page 88
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 5 Page 89
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 5 Page 90
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - - Data Management Assessment Data and Reporting Verifications - Verifications - Data and Reporting District Site District Site District Site District Site I - M&E Structure, 1200% 1200% Functions and Capabilities I - M&E Structure, 10 Functions and 9 Capabilities 1000% 8 1000% 7 3 6 II- Indicator 5 800% V - Links with Definitions and 4 2 National Reporting 3 800% Reporting System Guidelines II- Indicator 2 V - Links with 600% Definitions and 1 National Reporting 1 0 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes 0% and Tools 200% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 5 Page 91
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 6 Page 92
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 6 Page 93
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - - Data Management Assessment Data and Data andVerifications -Verifications Reporting Reporting - District Site District Site District SiteDistrict Site I - M&E Structure, 1200% 120% Functions and Capabilities 10 I - M&E Structure, 1000% Functions and 9 Capabilities 8 100% 7 10 6 II- Indicator 9 5 800% 8 V - Links with Definitions and 4 7 National Reporting 3 6 Reporting System 80% Guidelines 2 II- Indicator 5 1 V - Links with 600% Definitions and 4 0 National Reporting 3 Reporting System Guidelines 2 1 60% 400% 0 200% 40% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes 0% and Tools 20% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 6 Page 94
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 7 Page 95
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 7 Page 96
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - - Data Management Assessment Data and Reporting Verifications - Verifications - Data and Reporting District Site District Site District Site District Site I - M&E Structure, 1200% 120% Functions and Capabilities I - M&E Structure, 10 Functions and 9 Capabilities 1000% 8 100% 7 10 6 II- Indicator 5 800% 8 V - Links with Definitions and 4 National Reporting 3 6 80% Reporting System Guidelines II- Indicator 2 V - Links with 600% Definitions and 1 4 National Reporting 0 Reporting System Guidelines 2 60% 0 400% 40% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes 0% and Tools 20% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 7 Page 97
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 8 Page 98
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 8 Page 99
Part 3: Recommendations for the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the District site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measures, with an estima length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system. Action points should be discussed with the Pro Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 8 Page 100
District Site Summary Statistics Data Management Assessment - District Level Data and Reporting Verifications - District Level Summary Summary 1200% M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 800% 2 Indicator Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor District Summary Page 101
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 1 Page 102
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 1 Page 103
When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 1 Page 104
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 2 Page 105
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 2 Page 106
When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 2 Page 107
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 3 Page 108
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 3 Page 109
When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 3 Page 110
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 4 Page 111
Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 4 Page 112
When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the Regional site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measures, with an estim the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system. Action points should be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 4 Page 113
Regional Site Summary Statistics Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Level Summary Regional Level Summary 1200% M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 800% 2 Indicator Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor Regional Summary Page 114
Data Verification and System Assessment Sheet - National Level M&E Unit National Level M&E Unit/Organization: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the intermediate aggregation sites to the National Level and compare to the value published by the National Program (or reported by the National Program to the Donor, if applicable). Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all reporting 1 entities. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 M&E Unit? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Intermediate Aggregation Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Aggregation Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? How many reports should there have been from all reporting entities (e.g., 5 regions, districts, service points)? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There is a documented organizational structure/chart that clearly identifies 1 positions that have data management responsibilities at the M&E Unit. (to specify which Unit: e.g. MoH, NAP, GF, World Bank) 2 All staff positions dedicated to M&E and data management systems are filled. A senior staff member (e.g., the Program Manager) is responsible for 3 reviewing the aggregated numbers prior to the submission/release of reports from the M&E Unit. There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 4 accuracy, completeness, timeliness and confidentiality ) received from sub- reporting levels (e.g., regions, districts, service points). There is a training plan which includes staff involved in data-collection and 5 reporting at all levels in the reporting process. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 6 and tools. National Level _ M_E Unit Page 115
II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has documented and shared the definition of the indicator(s) 7 with all relevant levels of the reporting system (e.g., regions, districts, service points). There is a description of the services that are related to each indicator 8 measured by the Program/project. There is a written policy that states for how long source documents and 9 reporting forms need to be retained. The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to all reporting entities (e.g., 10 regions, districts, service points) on reporting requirements and deadlines. The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 11 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 12 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 13 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 14 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools If multiple organizations are implementing activities under the 15 Program/project, they all use the same reporting forms and report according to the same reporting timelines. The M&E Unit has identified a standard source document (e.g., medical 16 record, client intake form, register, etc.) to be used by all service delivery points to record service delivery. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 17 reporting levels. 18 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 19 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The data collected by the M&E system has sufficient precision to measure the 20 indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies disaggregation by these characteristics). All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 21 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes The M&E Unit has clearly documented data aggregation, analysis and/or 22 manipulation steps performed at each level of the reporting system. Feedback is systematically provided to all sub-reporting levels on the quality 23 of their reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). (If applicable) There are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 24 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). (If applicable) There is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or 25 data processing is computerized. ...If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 26 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 27 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 28 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 29 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 30 missing reports; including following-up with sub-reporting levels on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from sub-reporting 31 levels, the M&E Unit (e.g., districts or regions) has documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. The M&E Unit can demonstrate that regular supervisory site visits have taken 32 place and that data quality has been reviewed. National Level _ M_E Unit Page 116
V- Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 33 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 34 and reporting. Reporting deadlines are harmonized with the relevant timelines of the 35 National Program (e.g., cut-off dates for monthly reporting). 36 The service sites are identified using ID numbers that follow a national system. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 37 region, district, ward, etc.) 38 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Follow up Recommendations and Action Plan - M&E Unit Summarize key issues that the Program should follow up at various levels of the system (e.g. issues found at site level and/or at intermediate aggregation site level). Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: National Level - M&E Unit Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - M&E Unit M&E Unit 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and 1 National Reporting Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor National Level _ M_E Unit Page 117
I II III IV V Average SUMMARY TABLE (per site) Assessment of Data Management M&E Structure, Indicator Definitions Data-collection and Data Management Links with National and Reporting Systems Functions and and Reporting Reporting Forms / Processes Reporting System Capabilities Guidelines Tools M&E Unit - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Regional Level 1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Intermediate Aggregation Level Sites 1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Delivery Points/Organizations 1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Average (per functional area) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A System Assessment Summary Page 118
Global Dashboard - Summary Statistics, All Levels Data Management Assessment - Global Aggregate Score Data and Reporting Verifications - Global Aggregate Score 1200% M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% Indicator Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor Global Dashboard Page 119
RDQA Final Action Plan Country: Program/project Date of RDQA: Date of Proposed Follow-up Description of Weakness System Strengthening Measures Responsable(s) Timeline Comments Add rows as needed Summary of Site Specific Action Plans Site Identified Weaknesses System Strengthening Measures Responsible(s) Time line Comments National Level - M&E Unit 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - Regional Site 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - District Site 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - Service Point 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - RDQA Final Action Plan Page 120
Systems Assessment Components Contributing to Data Quality Dimensions Level Dimension of Data Quality Aggregation Levels Completeness Service Points Confidentiality Functional Area Timeliness Reliability M&E Unit Precision Accuracy Integrity I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There is a documented organizational structure/chart that clearly identifies positions that have data management responsibilities at the M&E Unit. (to P — — — specify which Unit: e.g. MoH, NAP, GF, World Bank) All staff positions dedicated to M&E and data management systems are P — — — filled. A senior staff member (e.g., the Program Manager) is responsible for reviewing the aggregated numbers prior to the submission/release of reports P — — — — from the M&E Unit. There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., accuracy, completeness, timeliness and confidentiality ) received from sub- P P — — — — — — reporting levels (e.g., regions, districts, service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers P P — — prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents P — — is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. There is a training plan which includes staff involved in data-collection and P — — — — — reporting at all levels in the reporting process. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes P P P — — — — — — and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has documented and shared the definition of the indicator(s) with all relevant levels of the reporting system (e.g., regions, districts, service P — — points). There is a description of the services that are related to each indicator P — — measured by the Program/project. The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to all reporting entities (e.g., P P P — — — — regions, districts, service points) on reporting requirements and deadlines. There is a written policy that states for how long source documents and P — — — — — — reporting forms need to be retained. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools If multiple organizations are implementing activities under the Program/project, they all use the same reporting forms and report according P — — to the same reporting timelines. List of Survey Questions Page 121
Systems Assessment Components Contributing to Data Quality Dimensions Level Dimension of Data Quality Aggregation Levels Completeness Service Points Confidentiality Functional Area Timeliness Reliability M&E Unit Precision Accuracy Integrity The M&E Unit has identified a standard source document (e.g., medical record, client intake form, register, etc.) to be used by all service delivery P — — points to record service delivery. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all P P P — — reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by all levels. P P P — — Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete P P P — — the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The data collected by the M&E system has sufficient precision to measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the P P — indicator specifies disaggregation by these characteristics). All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in P P P — — — — — — case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes The M&E Unit has clearly documented data aggregation, analysis and/or P — — — — — manipulation steps performed at each level of the reporting system. Feedback is systematically provided to all sub-reporting levels on the quality P P — — — — — of their reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). [If applicable] There are quality controls in place for when data from paper- based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry P P P — — — — — — verification, etc). [If applicable] There is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or P P P — — — — — — data processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update P P P — — — — — — of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international P P P — confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same P P P — — service twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", P P P — — a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. List of Survey Questions Page 122
Systems Assessment Components Contributing to Data Quality Dimensions Level Dimension of Data Quality Aggregation Levels Completeness Service Points Confidentiality Functional Area Timeliness Reliability M&E Unit Precision Accuracy Integrity There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and missing reports; including following-up with sub-reporting levels on data P P — — — — — — quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from sub-reporting levels, the M&E Unit (e.g., districts or regions) has documented how these P P — — — — — — inconsistencies have been resolved. The M&E Unit can demonstrate that regular supervisory site visits have P — — — — — — — taken place and that data quality has been reviewed. V- Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection P P P — — — — and reporting. When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the P P P — — — — national reporting system. Reporting deadlines are harmonized with the relevant timelines of the P P — — — — National Program (e.g., cut-off dates for monthly reporting). The service sites are identified using ID numbers that follow a national P P — — — — system. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. P P P — — — — region, district, ward, etc.) ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. P P P — — — — List of Survey Questions Page 123

More Related Content

PPT
MEASURE Evaluation Data Quality Assessment Methodology and Tools
byremoved_62798267384a091db5c693ad7f1cc5ac
 
PPTX
Water service delivery indicators
byIRC
 
XLS
Dqa p2 malaria it_ns_may 2008
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Dqa p2 malaria it_ns_may 2008
byengrsaeed
 
PPT
Assessing M&E Systems For Data Quality
byremoved_62798267384a091db5c693ad7f1cc5ac
 
PPTX
3 programming and tools swot & lfa
byDagnĂ˝ GĂ­sladĂłttir
 
XLS
Dqa p2 malaria treatment_may 2008
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Dqa p2 malaria treatment_may 2008
byengrsaeed
 
MEASURE Evaluation Data Quality Assessment Methodology and Tools
byremoved_62798267384a091db5c693ad7f1cc5ac
 
Water service delivery indicators
byIRC
 
Dqa p2 malaria it_ns_may 2008
byswiss1234
 
Dqa p2 malaria it_ns_may 2008
byengrsaeed
 
Assessing M&E Systems For Data Quality
byremoved_62798267384a091db5c693ad7f1cc5ac
 
3 programming and tools swot & lfa
byDagnĂ˝ GĂ­sladĂłttir
 
Dqa p2 malaria treatment_may 2008
byswiss1234
 
Dqa p2 malaria treatment_may 2008
byengrsaeed
 

Similar to Routine data quality assessment tool june 2008

PDF
PEPFAR Vietnam Indicator Database
byremoved_62798267384a091db5c693ad7f1cc5ac
 
PPTX
2.2 programming and tools swot & lfa
byDagnĂ˝ GĂ­sladĂłttir
 
PDF
P724
byperformanceweb
 
PDF
Mo hsw national dqa tool_18aug2016_facil
byKUBUKE JACKSON
 
PDF
Harrison.g.poole.k
byNASAPMC
 
PDF
Operational analysis review_jan2010_p2c2
byJim Kendrick
 
PDF
Master Slides For EPIP Session
byDominic Campbell
 
PPTX
Burleson.amer
byNASAPMC
 
PDF
Acumen Fuse & Customer Case Study
byAcumen
 
PDF
Community needs assessment_tool_kit
byBonnie Collins
 
PDF
Ruth edge presentation
byArk Group Australia Pty Ltd
 
PPTX
Overall framework plan of action in pursuit of the cordillera autonomy
byRdc Cordillera
 
PPTX
Borchardt.heidemarie
byNASAPMC
 
PDF
P724 Web
byperformanceweb
 
PDF
Creating Data Hubs to Enhance Information Sharing
byInnoTech
 
PPT
Disaster recovery
byJawaid Bhatti
 
PDF
service quality & usability
byYves Pigneur
 
PDF
Determination of administrative data quality: recent results and new developm...
byPiet J.H. Daas
 
PDF
How to Conduct A Nationally Owned Governance Assessment
byGovernance Asssessment Portal
 
PDF
Recruit and retain IT professionals Gary Fay
bySFIA User Forum
 
PEPFAR Vietnam Indicator Database
byremoved_62798267384a091db5c693ad7f1cc5ac
 
2.2 programming and tools swot & lfa
byDagnĂ˝ GĂ­sladĂłttir
 
P724
byperformanceweb
 
Mo hsw national dqa tool_18aug2016_facil
byKUBUKE JACKSON
 
Harrison.g.poole.k
byNASAPMC
 
Operational analysis review_jan2010_p2c2
byJim Kendrick
 
Master Slides For EPIP Session
byDominic Campbell
 
Burleson.amer
byNASAPMC
 
Acumen Fuse & Customer Case Study
byAcumen
 
Community needs assessment_tool_kit
byBonnie Collins
 
Ruth edge presentation
byArk Group Australia Pty Ltd
 
Overall framework plan of action in pursuit of the cordillera autonomy
byRdc Cordillera
 
Borchardt.heidemarie
byNASAPMC
 
P724 Web
byperformanceweb
 
Creating Data Hubs to Enhance Information Sharing
byInnoTech
 
Disaster recovery
byJawaid Bhatti
 
service quality & usability
byYves Pigneur
 
Determination of administrative data quality: recent results and new developm...
byPiet J.H. Daas
 
How to Conduct A Nationally Owned Governance Assessment
byGovernance Asssessment Portal
 
Recruit and retain IT professionals Gary Fay
bySFIA User Forum
 

More from swiss1234

XLS
Sole solicitor qaq electronic version[sra]
byswiss1234
 
PPTX
Bulgaria forum presentation
byswiss1234
 
PPT
Sunimages
byswiss1234
 
PPT
Satelite
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Quality assurance 11x17
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Pakistan
byswiss1234
 
XLS
New taught programme accreditation flowchart dec06
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Financial services intermediaries quality assurance and tcf questionnaire[fsa]
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Routine data quality assessment tool june 2008
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Quality assurance 11x17
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Quality assurance
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Pakistan
byswiss1234
 
XLS
New taught programme accreditation flowchart dec06
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Financial services intermediaries quality assurance and tcf questionnaire[fsa]
byswiss1234
 
PPT
Whwg
byswiss1234
 
XLSX
Ec2 instace cost analysis
byswiss1234
 
XLS
Pages bugs for deployment
byswiss1234
 
PPT
Cdr pan sat
byswiss1234
 
Sole solicitor qaq electronic version[sra]
byswiss1234
 
Bulgaria forum presentation
byswiss1234
 
Sunimages
byswiss1234
 
Satelite
byswiss1234
 
Quality assurance 11x17
byswiss1234
 
Pakistan
byswiss1234
 
New taught programme accreditation flowchart dec06
byswiss1234
 
Financial services intermediaries quality assurance and tcf questionnaire[fsa]
byswiss1234
 
Routine data quality assessment tool june 2008
byswiss1234
 
Quality assurance 11x17
byswiss1234
 
Quality assurance
byswiss1234
 
Pakistan
byswiss1234
 
New taught programme accreditation flowchart dec06
byswiss1234
 
Financial services intermediaries quality assurance and tcf questionnaire[fsa]
byswiss1234
 
Whwg
byswiss1234
 
Ec2 instace cost analysis
byswiss1234
 
Pages bugs for deployment
byswiss1234
 
Cdr pan sat
byswiss1234
 

Routine data quality assessment tool june 2008

  • 1.
    Routine Data QualityAssessment (RDQA) Checklist to Assess Program/Project Data Quality Number of Regional Aggregation Sites þÿ1 Number of District Aggregation Sites þÿ1 Number of Service Delivery Sites þÿ1 Version: Jan 2010 Important notes for the use of this spreadsheet: 1. In order to use the Routine Data Quality Assessment tool you will need to ensure that your 'macro security' is set to something less than 'high'. With the spreadsheet open, go to the 'Tools' pull-down menu and select 'Macro', then 'Security'. Select 'medium'. Close Excel and re-open the file. When you open the file the next time you will have to select 'Enable Macros' for the application to work as designed. 2. On the START Page (this page), please select number of intermediate aggregation sites (IAS) and Service Delivery Points (SDPs) that you plan to review from the dropdown lists above. IAS are typically the district level health unit of the Ministry of Health. START Page 1
  • 2.
    B – INSTRUCTIONSFOR USE OF THE RDQA 1. Determine Purpose The RDQA checklist can be used for: T Initial assessment of M&E systems established by new implementing partners (or in decentralized systems) to collect, manage and report data. I Routine supervision of data management and reporting systems and data quality at various levels. For example, routine supervision visits may include checking on a certain time period worth of data (e.g. one day, one week or one month) at the service site level, whereas periodic assessments (e.g. quarterly, biannually or annually) could be carried out at all levels to assess the functioning of the entire Program/project’s M&E system. t Periodic assessment by donors of the quality of data being provided to them (this use of the DQA could be more frequent and more streamlined than official data quality audits that use the DQA for Auditing) but less frequent than routine monitoring of data. D Preparation for a formal data quality audit. The RDQA is flexible for all of these uses. Countries and programs are encouraged to adapt the checklist to fit local program contexts. 2. Level/Site Selection Select levels and sites to be included (depending on the purpose and resources available). Once the purpose has been determined, the second step in the RDQA is to decide what levels of the data-collection and reporting system will be included in the assessment - service sites, intermediate aggregation levels, and/or central M&E unit. The levels should be determined once the appropriate reporting levels have been identified and “mapped” (e.g., there are 100 sites providing the services in 10 districts. Reports from sites are sent to districts, which then send aggregated reports to the M&E Unit). In some cases, the data flow will include more than one intermediate level (e.g. regions, provinces or states or multiple levels of program organizations). 3. Identify indicators, data sources and reporting period. The RDQA is designed to assess the quality of data and underlying systems related to indicators that are reported to programs or donors. It is necessary to select one or more indicators – or at least program areas – to serve as the subject of the RDQA. This choice will be based on the list of reported indicators. For example, a program focusing on treatment for HIV may report indicators of numbers of people on ART. Another program may focus on meeting the needs of orphans or vulnerable children, therefore the indicators for that program would be from the OVC program area. A malaria program might focus on providing insecticide-treated bed nets (ITN) or on treating people for malaria – or on both of those activities. 4. Conduct site visits. During the site visits, the relevant sections of the appropriate checklists in the Excel file are filled out (e.g. the service site checklist at service sites, etc). These checklists are completed following interviews of relevant staff and reviews of site documentation. Using the drop down lists on the HEADER page of this workbook, select the appropriate number of Intermediate Aggregation Levels (IAL) and Service Delivery Points (SDP) to be reviewed. The appropriate number of worksheets will automatically appear in the RDQA workbook (up to 12 SDP and 4 IALs). 5. Review outputs and findings. The RDQAoutputs need to be reviewed for each site visited. Site-specific summary findings in the form of recommendations are noted at each site visited. The RDQA checklists exist in MS Excel format and responses can be entered directly into the spreadsheets on the computer. Alternatively, the checklists can be printed and completed by hand. When completed electronically, a dashboard produces graphics of summary statistics for each site and level of the reporting system. The dashboard displays two (2) graphs for each site visited: - A spider-graph displays qualitative data generated from the assessment of the data-collection and reporting system and can be used to prioritize areas for improvement. - A bar-chart shows the quantitative data generated from the data verifications; these can be used to plan for data quality improvement. In addition, a 'Global Dashboard' shows statistics aggregated across and within levels to highlight overall strengths and weaknesses in the reporting system. The Global Dashboard shows a spider graph for qualitative assessments and a bar chart for quantitative assessments as above. In addition, stengths and weakness of the reporting system are displayed as dimensions of data quality in a 100% stacked bar chart. For this analysis questions are grouped by the applicable dimension of data quality (e.g. accuracy or reliability) and the number of responses by type of response (e.g. 'Yes - completely', 'Partly' etc.) are plotted as a percentage of all responses. A table of survey questions and their associated dimensions of data quality can be found on the 'Dimensions of data quality' tab in this workbook. 6. Develop a system’s strengthening plan, including follow-up actions. The final output of the RDQA is an action plan for improving data quality which describes the identified strengthening measures, the staff responsible, the timeline for completion, resources required and follow-up. Using the graphics and the detailed comments for each question, weak performing functional areas of the reporting system can be identified. Program staff can then outline strengthening measures (e.g. training, data reviews), assign responsibilities and timelines and identify resources using the Action Plan tab in this workbook. INSTRUCTIONS Page 2
  • 3.
    C – BACKGROUNDINFORMATION – RDQA Country: Name of Program/project: Indicator Reviewed: Reporting Period Verified: Assessment Team: Name Title Email Primary contact: M&E Management Unit at Central Level Name of Site Facility Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1- Regional Level Aggregation Sites Name of Site Facility Code Region Region Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1 District Level Aggregation Sites Name of Site Facility Code District District Code Region Region Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1 Service Delivery Points (SDPs) Name of Site Facility Code District District Code Region Region Code Date (mm/dd/yy) 1 Information_Page Page 3
  • 4.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 1 Page 4
  • 5.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 1 Page 5
  • 6.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and 1.00 National Reporting Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 1 Page 6
  • 7.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 2 Page 7
  • 8.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 2 Page 8
  • 9.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 2 Page 9
  • 10.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 3 Page 10
  • 11.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 3 Page 11
  • 12.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 3 Page 12
  • 13.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 4 Page 13
  • 14.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 4 Page 14
  • 15.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 4 Page 15
  • 16.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 5 Page 16
  • 17.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 5 Page 17
  • 18.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 5 Page 18
  • 19.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 6 Page 19
  • 20.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 6 Page 20
  • 21.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 6 Page 21
  • 22.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 7 Page 22
  • 23.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 7 Page 23
  • 24.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 7 Page 24
  • 25.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 8 Page 25
  • 26.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 8 Page 26
  • 27.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 8 Page 27
  • 28.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 9 Page 28
  • 29.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 9 Page 29
  • 30.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 9 Page 30
  • 31.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 10 Page 31
  • 32.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 10 Page 32
  • 33.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 10 Page 33
  • 34.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 11 Page 34
  • 35.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 11 Page 35
  • 36.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 11 Page 36
  • 37.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 12 Page 37
  • 38.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 12 Page 38
  • 39.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 12 Page 39
  • 40.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 13 Page 40
  • 41.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 13 Page 41
  • 42.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 13 Page 42
  • 43.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 14 Page 43
  • 44.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 14 Page 44
  • 45.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 14 Page 45
  • 46.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 15 Page 46
  • 47.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 15 Page 47
  • 48.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 15 Page 48
  • 49.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 16 Page 49
  • 50.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 16 Page 50
  • 51.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 16 Page 51
  • 52.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 17 Page 52
  • 53.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 17 Page 53
  • 54.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 17 Page 54
  • 55.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 18 Page 55
  • 56.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 18 Page 56
  • 57.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 18 Page 57
  • 58.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 19 Page 58
  • 59.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 19 Page 59
  • 60.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 19 Page 60
  • 61.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 20 Page 61
  • 62.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 20 Page 62
  • 63.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 20 Page 63
  • 64.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 21 Page 64
  • 65.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 21 Page 65
  • 66.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 21 Page 66
  • 67.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 22 Page 67
  • 68.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 22 Page 68
  • 69.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 22 Page 69
  • 70.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 23 Page 70
  • 71.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 23 Page 71
  • 72.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 23 Page 72
  • 73.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Service Delivery Point Service Delivery Point/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Documentation Review: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source documents for the selected reporting period. Review available source documents for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source documents are missing? 1 If yes, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Are all available source documents complete? 2 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. Review the dates on the source documents. Do all dates fall within the reporting period? 3 If no, determine how this might have affected reported numbers. B - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any). Recount the number of people, cases or events during the reporting period by 4 reviewing the source documents. [A] Enter the number of people, cases or events reported by the site during the 5 reporting period from the site summary report. [B] 6 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 7 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? C - Cross-check reported results with other data sources: Cross-checks can be performed by examining separate inventory records documenting the quantities of treatment drugs, test-kits or ITNs purchased and delivered during the reporting period to see if these numbers corroborate the reported results. Other cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 patient cards and verifying if these patients were recorded in the unit, laboratory or pharmacy registers. To the extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for example, from Patient Treatment Cards to the Register and from Register to Patient Treatment Cards). 8 List the documents used for performing the cross-checks. 9 Describe the cross-checks performed? 10 What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed? Service Point 24 Page 73
  • 74.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 1 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to districts, to regional offices, to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents 2 is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III - Data-collection and Reporting Forms and Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels 10 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). The data collected on the source document has sufficient precision to 12 measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies desegregation by these characteristics). IV- Data Management Processes If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. ….if yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 15 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. V - Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 19 and reporting. When applicable, data are reported through a single channel of the national 20 information systems. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 21 region, district, ward, etc.) 22 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Service Point 24 Page 74
  • 75.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the Service Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the service site, please describe any challenges to data quality identified and recommended strengthening measures, with an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. These will be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Service Delivery Point Data Management Assessment - Service Delivery Point Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Delivery Point 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 3.00 1000% 2.00 II- Indicator 800% V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1.00 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0.00 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification Factor Service Point 24 Page 75
  • 76.
    Service Delivery SiteSummary Statistics Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Service Site Summary Service Site Summary 1 M&E Structure, 0.9 Functions and Capabilities 0.8 3 0.7 2 0.6 Indicator Number of Sites Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System 0.5 Guidelines 0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0 <=70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 >130 Percent Accuracy Service Site Summary Page 76
  • 77.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 1 Page 77
  • 78.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 1 Page 78
  • 79.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 1 Page 79
  • 80.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 2 Page 80
  • 81.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 2 Page 81
  • 82.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 2 Page 82
  • 83.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 3 Page 83
  • 84.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 3 Page 84
  • 85.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 10 9 8 7 6 800% II- Indicator 5 V - Links with Definitions and 4 National Reporting 3 Reporting System Guidelines 2 1 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 3 Page 85
  • 86.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 4 Page 86
  • 87.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 4 Page 87
  • 88.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 4 Page 88
  • 89.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 5 Page 89
  • 90.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 5 Page 90
  • 91.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - - Data Management Assessment Data and Reporting Verifications - Verifications - Data and Reporting District Site District Site District Site District Site I - M&E Structure, 1200% 1200% Functions and Capabilities I - M&E Structure, 10 Functions and 9 Capabilities 1000% 8 1000% 7 3 6 II- Indicator 5 800% V - Links with Definitions and 4 2 National Reporting 3 800% Reporting System Guidelines II- Indicator 2 V - Links with 600% Definitions and 1 National Reporting 1 0 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes 0% and Tools 200% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 5 Page 91
  • 92.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 6 Page 92
  • 93.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 6 Page 93
  • 94.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - - Data Management Assessment Data and Data andVerifications -Verifications Reporting Reporting - District Site District Site District SiteDistrict Site I - M&E Structure, 1200% 120% Functions and Capabilities 10 I - M&E Structure, 1000% Functions and 9 Capabilities 8 100% 7 10 6 II- Indicator 9 5 800% 8 V - Links with Definitions and 4 7 National Reporting 3 6 Reporting System 80% Guidelines 2 II- Indicator 5 1 V - Links with 600% Definitions and 4 0 National Reporting 3 Reporting System Guidelines 2 1 60% 400% 0 200% 40% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes 0% and Tools 20% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 6 Page 94
  • 95.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 7 Page 95
  • 96.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 7 Page 96
  • 97.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - - Data Management Assessment Data and Reporting Verifications - Verifications - Data and Reporting District Site District Site District Site District Site I - M&E Structure, 1200% 120% Functions and Capabilities I - M&E Structure, 10 Functions and 9 Capabilities 1000% 8 100% 7 10 6 II- Indicator 5 800% 8 V - Links with Definitions and 4 National Reporting 3 6 80% Reporting System Guidelines II- Indicator 2 V - Links with 600% Definitions and 1 4 National Reporting 0 Reporting System Guidelines 2 60% 0 400% 40% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes 0% and Tools 20% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 7 Page 97
  • 98.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - District Site District Site/Organization: - Region and District: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from service sites to the District and compare to the value reported by the District. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 District (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Service Delivery Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all service sites? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. District Site 8 Page 98
  • 99.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. V - Links with National Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 17 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. District Site 8 Page 99
  • 100.
    Part 3: Recommendationsfor the District Site Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the District site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measures, with an estima length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system. Action points should be discussed with the Pro Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: District Site Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - District Site District Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete District Site 8 Page 100
  • 101.
    District Site SummaryStatistics Data Management Assessment - District Level Data and Reporting Verifications - District Level Summary Summary 1200% M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 800% 2 Indicator Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor District Summary Page 101
  • 102.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 1 Page 102
  • 103.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 1 Page 103
  • 104.
    When available, therelevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 1 Page 104
  • 105.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 2 Page 105
  • 106.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 2 Page 106
  • 107.
    When available, therelevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 2 Page 107
  • 108.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 3 Page 108
  • 109.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 3 Page 109
  • 110.
    When available, therelevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the intermediate aggregation site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measur an estimate of the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system). Action points should be disc with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 3 Page 110
  • 111.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - Regional Site Regional Site/Organization: - Region: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - REVIEWER COMMENTS completely Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Deta responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) No - not at all N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the Districts to the Region and compare to the value reported by the Region. Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all Service Delivery 1 Points. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 Intermediate Aggregation Site (and submitted to the next reporting level)? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Districts within the Region. How many reports should there have been from all Districts? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? 5 How many reports should there have been from all Districts? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Regional Site 4 Page 111
  • 112.
    Part 2. SystemsAssessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 1 accuracy, completeness and timeliness) received from sub-reporting levels (e.g., service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers 2 prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 3 and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 4 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 5 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 6 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 7 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 8 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 9 reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery 10 Site. All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 11 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes Feedback is systematically provided to all service points on the quality of their 12 reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). If applicable, there are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 13 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). If applicable, there is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or data 14 processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update 15 of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 16 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 17 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 18 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 19 missing reports; including following-up with service points on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from service points, the 20 Intermediate Aggregation Levels (e.g., districts or regions) have documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. Regional Site 4 Page 112
  • 113.
    When available, therelevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 21 and reporting. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 22 region, district, ward, etc.) 23 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Recommendations for the Intermediate Aggregation Level Based on the findings of the systems’ review and data verification at the Regional site, please describe any compliance requirements or recommended strengthening measures, with an estim the length of time the improvement measure could take. See systems assessment functions by function area (table below) for review of system. Action points should be discussed with the Program. Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: Intermediate Aggregation Level Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Site Regional Site 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and National Reporting 1 Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% Verification factor % Available % On Time % Complete Regional Site 4 Page 113
  • 114.
    Regional Site SummaryStatistics Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - Regional Level Summary Regional Level Summary 1200% M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 800% 2 Indicator Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor Regional Summary Page 114
  • 115.
    Data Verification andSystem Assessment Sheet - National Level M&E Unit National Level M&E Unit/Organization: - Indicator Reviewed: - Date of Review: - Reporting Period Verified: - Answer Codes: Yes - completely REVIEWER COMMENTS Component of the M&E System Partly (Please provide detail for each response not coded "Yes - Completely". Detailed No - not at all responses will help guide strengthening measures. ) N/A Part 1: Data Verifications A - Recounting reported Results: Recount results from the periodic reports sent from the intermediate aggregation sites to the National Level and compare to the value published by the National Program (or reported by the National Program to the Donor, if applicable). Explain discrepancies (if any). Re-aggregate the numbers from the reports received from all reporting 1 entities. What is the re-aggregated number? [A] What aggregated result was contained in the summary report prepared by the 2 M&E Unit? [B] 3 Calculate the ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B] - What are the reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry 4 errors, arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)? B - Reporting Performance: Review availability, completeness, and timeliness of reports from all Intermediate Aggregation Sites. How many reports should there have been from all Aggregation Sites? How many are there? Were they received on time? Are they complete? How many reports should there have been from all reporting entities (e.g., 5 regions, districts, service points)? [A] 6 How many reports are there? [B] 7 Calculate % Available Reports [B/A] - Check the dates on the reports received. How many reports were received 8 on time? (i.e., received by the due date). [C] 9 Calculate % On time Reports [C/A] - How many reports were complete? (i.e., complete means that the report 10 contained all the required indicator data*). [D] 11 Calculate % Complete Reports [D/A] - Part 2. Systems Assessment I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There is a documented organizational structure/chart that clearly identifies 1 positions that have data management responsibilities at the M&E Unit. (to specify which Unit: e.g. MoH, NAP, GF, World Bank) 2 All staff positions dedicated to M&E and data management systems are filled. A senior staff member (e.g., the Program Manager) is responsible for 3 reviewing the aggregated numbers prior to the submission/release of reports from the M&E Unit. There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., 4 accuracy, completeness, timeliness and confidentiality ) received from sub- reporting levels (e.g., regions, districts, service points). There is a training plan which includes staff involved in data-collection and 5 reporting at all levels in the reporting process. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes 6 and tools. National Level _ M_E Unit Page 115
  • 116.
    II- Indicator Definitionsand Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has documented and shared the definition of the indicator(s) 7 with all relevant levels of the reporting system (e.g., regions, districts, service points). There is a description of the services that are related to each indicator 8 measured by the Program/project. There is a written policy that states for how long source documents and 9 reporting forms need to be retained. The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to all reporting entities (e.g., 10 regions, districts, service points) on reporting requirements and deadlines. The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to each sub-reporting level on … 11 ,,, what they are supposed to report on. 12 … how (e.g., in what specific format) reports are to be submitted. 13 … to whom the reports should be submitted. 14 … when the reports are due. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools If multiple organizations are implementing activities under the 15 Program/project, they all use the same reporting forms and report according to the same reporting timelines. The M&E Unit has identified a standard source document (e.g., medical 16 record, client intake form, register, etc.) to be used by all service delivery points to record service delivery. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all 17 reporting levels. 18 ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by the Service Delivery Site. Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete 19 the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The data collected by the M&E system has sufficient precision to measure the 20 indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the indicator specifies disaggregation by these characteristics). All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the 21 indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes The M&E Unit has clearly documented data aggregation, analysis and/or 22 manipulation steps performed at each level of the reporting system. Feedback is systematically provided to all sub-reporting levels on the quality 23 of their reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). (If applicable) There are quality controls in place for when data from paper- 24 based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry verification, etc). (If applicable) There is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or 25 data processing is computerized. ...If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of 26 update of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international 27 confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same service 28 twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", 29 a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and 30 missing reports; including following-up with sub-reporting levels on data quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from sub-reporting 31 levels, the M&E Unit (e.g., districts or regions) has documented how these inconsistencies have been resolved. The M&E Unit can demonstrate that regular supervisory site visits have taken 32 place and that data quality has been reviewed. National Level _ M_E Unit Page 116
  • 117.
    V- Links withNational Reporting System When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the 33 national reporting system. When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection 34 and reporting. Reporting deadlines are harmonized with the relevant timelines of the 35 National Program (e.g., cut-off dates for monthly reporting). 36 The service sites are identified using ID numbers that follow a national system. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. 37 region, district, ward, etc.) 38 ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. Part 3: Follow up Recommendations and Action Plan - M&E Unit Summarize key issues that the Program should follow up at various levels of the system (e.g. issues found at site level and/or at intermediate aggregation site level). Identified Weaknesses Description of Action Point Responsible(s) Time Line 1 2 3 4 Part 4: DASHBOARD: National Level - M&E Unit Data Management Assessment - Data and Reporting Verifications - M&E Unit M&E Unit 1200% I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% II- Indicator V - Links with Definitions and 1 National Reporting Reporting System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% III - Data-collection IV- Data Management and Reporting Forms Processes and Tools 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor National Level _ M_E Unit Page 117
  • 118.
    I II III IV V Average SUMMARY TABLE (per site) Assessment of Data Management M&E Structure, Indicator Definitions Data-collection and Data Management Links with National and Reporting Systems Functions and and Reporting Reporting Forms / Processes Reporting System Capabilities Guidelines Tools M&E Unit - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Regional Level 1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Intermediate Aggregation Level Sites 1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Delivery Points/Organizations 1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Average (per functional area) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A System Assessment Summary Page 118
  • 119.
    Global Dashboard -Summary Statistics, All Levels Data Management Assessment - Global Aggregate Score Data and Reporting Verifications - Global Aggregate Score 1200% M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities 1000% 3 2 800% Indicator Links with Definitions National Reporting and Reporting 1 System Guidelines 600% 0 400% 200% Data-collection Data and Reporting Management Forms / Tools Processes 0% % Available % On Time % Complete Verification Factor Global Dashboard Page 119
  • 120.
    RDQA Final ActionPlan Country: Program/project Date of RDQA: Date of Proposed Follow-up Description of Weakness System Strengthening Measures Responsable(s) Timeline Comments Add rows as needed Summary of Site Specific Action Plans Site Identified Weaknesses System Strengthening Measures Responsible(s) Time line Comments National Level - M&E Unit 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - Regional Site 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - District Site 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - Service Point 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - RDQA Final Action Plan Page 120
  • 121.
    Systems Assessment ComponentsContributing to Data Quality Dimensions Level Dimension of Data Quality Aggregation Levels Completeness Service Points Confidentiality Functional Area Timeliness Reliability M&E Unit Precision Accuracy Integrity I - M&E Structure, Functions and Capabilities There is a documented organizational structure/chart that clearly identifies positions that have data management responsibilities at the M&E Unit. (to P — — — specify which Unit: e.g. MoH, NAP, GF, World Bank) All staff positions dedicated to M&E and data management systems are P — — — filled. A senior staff member (e.g., the Program Manager) is responsible for reviewing the aggregated numbers prior to the submission/release of reports P — — — — from the M&E Unit. There are designated staff responsible for reviewing the quality of data (i.e., accuracy, completeness, timeliness and confidentiality ) received from sub- P P — — — — — — reporting levels (e.g., regions, districts, service points). There are designated staff responsible for reviewing aggregated numbers P P — — prior to submission to the next level (e.g., to the central M&E Unit). The responsibility for recording the delivery of services on source documents P — — is clearly assigned to the relevant staff. There is a training plan which includes staff involved in data-collection and P — — — — — reporting at all levels in the reporting process. All relevant staff have received training on the data management processes P P P — — — — — — and tools. II- Indicator Definitions and Reporting Guidelines The M&E Unit has documented and shared the definition of the indicator(s) with all relevant levels of the reporting system (e.g., regions, districts, service P — — points). There is a description of the services that are related to each indicator P — — measured by the Program/project. The M&E Unit has provided written guidelines to all reporting entities (e.g., P P P — — — — regions, districts, service points) on reporting requirements and deadlines. There is a written policy that states for how long source documents and P — — — — — — reporting forms need to be retained. III- Data-collection and Reporting Forms / Tools If multiple organizations are implementing activities under the Program/project, they all use the same reporting forms and report according P — — to the same reporting timelines. List of Survey Questions Page 121
  • 122.
    Systems Assessment ComponentsContributing to Data Quality Dimensions Level Dimension of Data Quality Aggregation Levels Completeness Service Points Confidentiality Functional Area Timeliness Reliability M&E Unit Precision Accuracy Integrity The M&E Unit has identified a standard source document (e.g., medical record, client intake form, register, etc.) to be used by all service delivery P — — points to record service delivery. The M&E Unit has identified standard reporting forms/tools to be used by all P P P — — reporting levels ….The standard forms/tools are consistently used by all levels. P P P — — Clear instructions have been provided by the M&E Unit on how to complete P P P — — the data collection and reporting forms/tools. The data collected by the M&E system has sufficient precision to measure the indicator(s) (i.e., relevant data are collected by sex, age, etc. if the P P — indicator specifies disaggregation by these characteristics). All source documents and reporting forms relevant for measuring the indicator(s) are available for auditing purposes (including dated print-outs in P P P — — — — — — case of computerized system). IV- Data Management Processes The M&E Unit has clearly documented data aggregation, analysis and/or P — — — — — manipulation steps performed at each level of the reporting system. Feedback is systematically provided to all sub-reporting levels on the quality P P — — — — — of their reporting (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timeliness). [If applicable] There are quality controls in place for when data from paper- based forms are entered into a computer (e.g., double entry, post-data entry P P P — — — — — — verification, etc). [If applicable] There is a written back-up procedure for when data entry or P P P — — — — — — data processing is computerized. If yes, the latest date of back-up is appropriate given the frequency of update P P P — — — — — — of the computerized system (e.g., back-ups are weekly or monthly). Relevant personal data are maintained according to national or international P P P — confidentiality guidelines. The recording and reporting system avoids double counting people within and across Service Delivery Points (e.g., a person receiving the same P P P — — service twice in a reporting period, a person registered as receiving the same service in two different locations, etc). The reporting system enables the identification and recording of a "drop out", P P P — — a person "lost to follow-up" and a person who died. List of Survey Questions Page 122
  • 123.
    Systems Assessment ComponentsContributing to Data Quality Dimensions Level Dimension of Data Quality Aggregation Levels Completeness Service Points Confidentiality Functional Area Timeliness Reliability M&E Unit Precision Accuracy Integrity There is a written procedure to address late, incomplete, inaccurate and missing reports; including following-up with sub-reporting levels on data P P — — — — — — quality issues. If data discrepancies have been uncovered in reports from sub-reporting levels, the M&E Unit (e.g., districts or regions) has documented how these P P — — — — — — inconsistencies have been resolved. The M&E Unit can demonstrate that regular supervisory site visits have P — — — — — — — taken place and that data quality has been reviewed. V- Links with National Reporting System When available, the relevant national forms/tools are used for data-collection P P P — — — — and reporting. When applicable, the data are reported through a single channel of the P P P — — — — national reporting system. Reporting deadlines are harmonized with the relevant timelines of the P P — — — — National Program (e.g., cut-off dates for monthly reporting). The service sites are identified using ID numbers that follow a national P P — — — — system. The system records information about where the service is delivered (i.e. P P P — — — — region, district, ward, etc.) ….if yes, place names are recorded using standarized naming conventions. P P P — — — — List of Survey Questions Page 123