Reporting Template

LFA Reporting Template – M&E/Programmatic Spot Checks

August 2016

Spot Check:
Triggers for Spot Check:
Country: / Disease Component:
PR: / Grant Number:
LFA Conducting Assessment: / Date of Assessment:

01  Background

The LFA should provide a brief overview on:
-  The reasons the particular spot check was conducted i.e. triggers e.g. Country Team request, data quality issues, percentage of budget allocated;
-  The objectives of the spot check;

02  Methodology

The LFA should provide a brief overview on the following:
-  Assessment team composition;
-  Sampling methodology and arrangements; and
-  Preparation for data collection e.g. recruitment and training, if any, of data collectors; meetings with PR and disease program managers; LOE; data collection (interviewees); average duration of interviews
The LFA should also provide information on data management and analysis:
-  Data entry (how this was undertaken, people involved); software used
-  Data analysis (description of how data were analyzed and coded)

03  Findings

The LFA should provide a broad description of the study/assessment population – the number of planned sites and the number actually conducted (response rate)
The LFA should outline the findings by the main sections outlined in the TOR i.e. by TOR headings. Both quantitative and qualitative results should be presented to highlight the main findings.
The LFA can use tables and charts, where appropriate, in addition to text to illustrate pertinent information.

04  Limitations

The LFA should focus on the methodological issues that may influence the interpretation of the results. For example, issues around sampling, response rate, respondent bias, difficulties in conducting the spot check and other identified limitations.

05  Main Issues Identified and Recommendations

The LFA should classify its findings into major and minor issues and list them in descending priority (i.e. start list of major issues with those of highest priority). Only findings that can be adequately substantiated should be included in the below tables.

As part of its findings, the LFA should answer the following question:

Has the LFA noted any evidence of irregularities/issues that raise doubts about the reliability of the underlying/supporting documentation viewed by the LFA as part of the verification/spot check? Evidence of falsified documents include but are not limited to: the use of the same handwriting, same ink, fake names (e.g. celebrity names) etc.

Yes ☐ No ☐

If yes, please provide details.

Specific to the spot check of training activities, the LFA should confirm the amount of ineligible expenditure, as relevant, and provide an analysis on why these expenditure are deemed ineligible.

Definitions of major and minor issues:

Major Issues: There are significant gaps in capacities/processes/systems that pose major risks to a successful implementation of the reviewed/assessed activity.

Minor Issues: Required capacity/processes/systems are generally in place. The identified gaps pose minor risks that can be managed and/or strengthening measures can be implemented within a short timeframe.

Recommendations should be (a) detailed – with all the relevant information included, (b) specific and contextualized, (c) realistically achievable in the implementation context, (c) time-bound, and (d) identify the main entity responsible for implementation of the recommendations.

Identified MAJOR Issues / LFA Recommendations / Suggested Timeframe for Implementation / Proposed entity responsible for implementation
1.
2.
3.
Identified MINOR Issues / LFA Recommendations / Suggested Timeframe for Implementation / Proposed entity responsible for implementation
1.
2.
3.

PERSONS INTERVIEWED/CONSULTED (add more rows as needed)

Name / Title / Workplace / Contact Details

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

ANNEXES