The LOPIN-Region 1 project in her cooperative agreement with
USAID, proposed a quality assurance plan to conduct monthly data verification
and validation by the state M&E team. The exercise is aimed at ascertaining
the correctness, completeness and accuracy of data reported by CBOs. The purpose of this standard operating
procedure (SOP) is to provide guidance to State M&E personnel in conducting monthly data verification in
order to ensure data quality.
Indicator(s) Reviewed
1.
Number of Household
and Caregivers enrolled during the month
2.
Number of OVC newly
enrolled during the month.
3.
Number of CVs
trained (Male/Female) on OVC MIS tools
4.
Number of OVC and
Caregivers served during the month
Objectives
1. Verify the quality
of reported data for the indicator
• Number of Household
and Caregivers enrolled during the month
• Number of OVC newly
enrolled during the month.
• Number of CVs
trained (Male/Female) on OVC MIS tools
• Number of OVC and
Caregivers served during the month
2. To verify that data in the household files
corresponds to data on NOMIS.
3. To verify if data with CBOs corresponds
with data at the State office
4. To verify if CBOs have duplicate copies of
relevant documents and accurate data as reported to the state office.
5. To verify the CBOs method of storing and
archiving data (ensure that there are files for all forms by type and location)
6. To address challenges identified from
feedback in filling of the MIS/ M&E tools
7. Conduct physical verification of 5% of
data reported for Households, which shall be selected randomly from the NOMIS
household register.
Methodology
1.
The data
Verification shall include a comprehensive documentation Review, recount
results for accuracy and cross check data with reported for
reliability.
1.
Attendance sheets and Agenda-
i.
Caregiver's forum,
ii.
kids club,
iii.
adolescent girls,
iv.
Gender norms
attendance:
v.
CBO/CV review
meeting.
Reports
i.
Training report: report of step down
trainings for new CVs
ii.
CBO/CV review meeting reports
a.
MIS tools- number of OVC served- and
the service forms -randomly select 20 HH files from NOMIS data and review.
Output in percentage.
b.
Home Case Managements plans for all
Households- select 50 files from every section files.
c.
Passports: what is done so far, what
processes are in place to achieve 100% success?
d.
Birth certificates; what is done so
far, what processes are in place to achieve 100% success.
2.
The reporting
performance shall also be assessed through timeliness, completeness and reporting
to the LGA level.
3.
Assessing the
filling system (how the files are arranged: serially, or by community
volunteers). Review of contents of household files, random sampling, section by
section
4.
Field verification of Households: The Households enrolled were verified by randomly or
purposefully selecting the HH ID numbers and verifying the information on the
MIS tools/NOMIS with information gotten from the enrolled households and OVCs
on-site.
5.
Reviewing the list
of Community volunteers and their performance assessment and also the Household
which they serve for the month. (for example: If they have 40 CVs they should
have MIS tools with the names of the CVs on them). The printed performance
assessment must be used: to be completed before end of verification.
Expected outputs
1. Comprehensive report
of the data verification exercise (Template is attached)
2. Validated number of
OVC newly enrolled and served during the month
3. Data domiciled at CBO
offices should be a true reflection of the performance being measured
Summary of validate
enrolment and service records for the month
S/N
|
MIS tools
|
Reported
|
VALIDATED
|
differences
|
Comments
|
1
|
HVA forms
|
.
|
|||
2
|
OVC forms
|
||||
3
|
Service forms
|
·
No. OVC served
1,772
·
Health 1648
·
Nutrition-1662
·
Education: 347
·
PSS 1541
·
Protection-82
|
·
No. OVC served
1,772
·
Health 1648
·
Nutrition-1662
·
Education: 347
·
PSS 1541
·
Protection-82
|
·
|
All
source documents are available and filed in their household files.
|
Findings/ Gaps
identified
1.
Poor
Documentation: Validated Performance assessment/ tracking sheet of only 15 CVs
have their performance assessment stored in the CBO office, for the month of
May. The performance assessment/ tracking sheet for the newly appointed CVs
should be retrieved and filed. Brokline currently has 40 CVs.
2.
List
of reactive case is documented and well documented.
3. Selected 15 household files to verify OVC service provision
for the month and NOMIS data entry. (using the source documents to verify what
was entered on the NOMIS).
a. 80% of the OVCs served for the month of April have updated
service forms in their ( 12 out of 15 Household files)
4. Caregiver service forms : randomly selected 6 Household
files (served for month of May on NOMIS for hard copy service forms
verification
a. 100% of the Caregivers have hardcopy service form updated for
May service provision ( 6 out of 6).
Documentation
s/n
|
Documents
|
Status of source
documents
|
1
|
Monthly monitoring and Supervision
report
|
Up to date. The reports should be
clearly printed
|
2
|
Field DQA report for
|
Up to date. Subsequently the DQA
reports should be improved by including the performance of CVs.
|
3
|
List of Reactive Persons
|
Up to date (26 reactive cases).
|
4
|
Monthly LGA report.(VC summary
report)
|
up to date
|
5
|
Gender Norms attendance
|
Up to date and still ongoing.
|
7.
|
CV Performance Assessment
|
Number of CVs that worked for the
month less than the number of Performance assessment forms available in the
CBO office.
|
Recommendation
1.
The
performance assessment/ tracking sheet for the newly appointed CVs should be
retrieved and filed.
Action Plan
S/N
|
Identified weaknesses
|
Description of Action Point
|
Responsible persons
|
Timeline
|
1.
|
Poor
documentation of performance assessment/tracking sheet of CVs
|
The
performance assessment/ tracking sheet for the newly appointed CVs should be
retrieved and filed
|
M&E
officer/PO
|
13th June, 2016
|
APPENDIX
DATA VERIFICATION
CHECKLIST
Organization/CBOs: State, LGA: AWANDEC, Akwa Ibom, Uyo
Indicator(s) Reviewed
1.
Number of Household and Caregivers
enrolled during the month
2.
Number of OVC newly enrolled during
the month.
3.
Number of CVs trained (Male/Female)
on OVC MIS tools
4.
Number of OVC and Caregivers served
during the month
Date of Review: 7th JUNE, 2016
Reporting Period Verified: May, 2016 (FY16)
DOCUMENTATION
REVIEW
Instruction: Review availability and completeness of all indicator source
documents for the selected reporting period.
A-Documentation Review:
|
# of OVC enrolled
|
# of HHs enrolled
|
# of OVC/caregivers provided with service
|
Comments
|
1.
Review available source documents
for the reporting period being verified. Is there any indication that source
documents are missing?
If yes, determine how this might have
affected reported numbers.
|
No
|
|||
2.
Are all available source documents
complete?
If no, determine how this
might have affected reported numbers.
|
Yes
|
|||
3.
Review the dates on the source
documents. Do all dates fall within
the reporting period?
If no, determine how this might have
affected reported numbers.
|
Yes
|
RECOUNTING
REPORTED RESULTS
Instruction: Recount results from source documents, compare the verified
numbers to the site reported numbers and explain discrepancies (if any).
B-Recounting reported Results:
|
# of OVC provided with service
|
Comments
|
1.
Recount the
number of people, cases or events recorded during the reporting month by
reviewing the source documents. [A]
|
o
No. OVC served 1,772
o
Health 1648
o
Nutrition-1662
o
Education: 347
o
PSS 1541
o
Protection-82
|
|
2.
Copy the number
of people, cases or events reported by the site during the reporting period
from the site summary report. [B]
|
·
No. OVC served 1,772
·
Health 1648
·
Nutrition-1662
·
Education: 347
·
PSS 1541
·
Protection-82
|
|
3.
Calculate the
ratio of recounted to reported numbers. [A/B]
|
100%
|
|
4.
What are the
reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed (i.e., data entry errors,
arithmetic errors, missing source documents, other)?
|
CROSS-CHECK
REPORTED RESULTS WITH OTHER DATA SOURCES
Instruction: Cross-checks can be performed by examining the
NOMIS enrolment register during the reporting period to see if these numbers
corroborate the reported results. Other
cross-checks could include, for example, randomly selecting 20 enrolment forms
and verifying if these VC enrolment forms were recorded in the NOMIS. To the
extent relevant, the cross-checks should be performed in both directions (for
example, from VC enrolment forms to the NOMIS enrolment register and from NOMIS
enrolment register to VC enrolment forms).
C-Cross-check reported results with other data
sources:
|
# of OVC and Caregiver provided service
|
Comments
|
1.
List the
documents used for performing the cross-checks.
|
NOMIS, source documents
(service forms)
|
|
2.
Describe the
cross-checks performed?
|
Using the NOMIS to cross check the source
documents that have been filed.
|
|
3.
What are the
reasons for the discrepancy (if any) observed?
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE SERVICE SITES
Based on the findings of the 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.
S/N
|
Identified weaknesses
|
Description of Action Point
|
Responsible persons
|
Timeline
|
1.
|
Poor
documentation of performance assessment/tracking sheet of CVs
|
The
performance assessment/ tracking sheet for the newly appointed CVs should be
retrieved and filed
|
M&E
officer/PO
|
13th June, 2016
|