Annex B: Validating Questions

 

You can use eight questions to test and validate your approach to monitoring.  These are set out below.  For each question, an explanation and an example are given.

1. Can the information be provided less frequently?
2. Can the information be provided in time with the provider’s own reporting systems?
3. Can the information be reported only by exception?
4. Is there an alternative item of information, perhaps more cost-effective, that could be used instead?
5. Can information that the provider already collects for another funder be used instead?
6. Can this information be collected on a sample basis?
7. Can this information be collected other than from the provider – such as a survey?
8. How can you assure the reliability of this information?

Each question is explained below.

 

A fictional example of monitoring a programme is shown in Annex C.

 

1. Can the information be provided less frequently?

 

Explanation

 

Funders often require providers to supply monitoring information in time with payments.  For example, if a funder agrees to pay a provider once a quarter, it will require the provider to submit the agreed monitoring information with the quarterly claims for payment.  Every time an item of information is collected and supplied to a funder, there is an associated cost.  Funders and providers should, therefore, agree to the supply of each item of information only as frequently as it is needed.  This could mean that, for example, some information is supplied quarterly while other information is collected and supplied annually.

 

Example

 

A funder has a financial agreement with a provider to train unemployed young people.  The provider, a voluntary organisation with limited working capital, needs to be paid quarterly.  The funder requires certain information quarterly to justify payments.  But the funder agrees that the provider can submit all other monitoring only every six months.

 

2. Can the information be provided in time with the provider’s own reporting systems?

 

Explanation

 

A funder may ask for certain information on a certain timescale.  The provider may explain that it already produces this information but on a different timescale.  It would cost more to produce the information to the funder’s preferred timescale.  In this case, the funder should weigh up the costs and benefits of collecting the information on the two timescales.  All things being equal, the funder should accept the information on the timescale that the provider already produces it.

 

Example

 

In a programme to encourage children to go for dental check-ups, the funder asks the provider for data on the children every quarter.  The provider explains that it already collects such information via schools, once a term (ie, three times a year).  Collecting the information four times a year would add significantly to the cost because the fourth collection would fall during the summer when the children would be away from school.  The funder agrees to use the provider’s termly figures.

 

3. Can the information be reported only by exception?

 

Explanation

 

Often, a funder requires the provider to supply every agreed item of information in each monitoring report.  Collecting and supplying all this information has a cost.  Another approach is for the funder and provider to agree that the provider will supply the information only if there has been a change (of a pre-agreed size or type) since the last report (or from a baseline).  This can be particularly useful in monitoring issues such as risk.  So long as there has been no change in the status of the risk, there is no need to supply other information on it.

 

Example

 

A funder sets up a programme to insulate people’s homes.  Before funding starts, the funder and provider agree a risk register.  This includes a risk that the cost of materials will rise beyond what the programme can afford.  The funder and provider include this in a risk register, with defences and contingencies.  The funder circulates an up-to-date version of the risk register every quarter.  The ‘traffic light’ for the cost of materials risk remains at ‘green’ unless the cost of materials rises past an agreed level.  The funder requires no further information in this area.

 

4. Is there an alternative, more cost-effective piece of information that that could be used instead?

 

Explanation

 

When planning monitoring information, funders should be aware that providers usually collect information to support their own management and governance.  They may also be collecting other information for other funders.  Adding extra monitoring requirements adds cost.  It is therefore a good idea to use, where possible, information that the provider already collects.

 

Example

 

In a programme to consult local people about plans for the regeneration of a neighbourhood, the funder wishes to know how many school-age residents are consulted.  The provider does existing consultation with children and young people at schools and colleges in the area.  It points out, though, that not all those who attend local schools and colleges live in the area (and some children and young people who do live in the area go to schools and colleges outside).  The funder nevertheless decides to use the existing data because to change it would add greatly to costs without much difference in the quality of information gained.

 

5. Can information that the provider already collects for another funder be used instead?

 

Explanation

 

Funders should be aware that providers often have financial agreements with more than one funder.  A provider of your programme may, thus, already collect and supply information to another funder.  When planning monitoring, it is a good idea, therefore, to use, where possible, information that the provider already collects for another funder.  Adding extra monitoring requirements adds cost.

 

Example

 

A funder has a financial agreement with a TSO to consult residents about the reconfiguration of sports and leisure facilities in their city.  The funder wants the work to be done to a high quality.  But it does not want to get involved in detailed monitoring of the quality of the work.

 

The provider explains that a previous funder has raised the same issue.  To address this, the previous funder and the provider agreed that the provider would seek PQASSO[i] accreditation.  The provider achieved this and now sends the previous funder a copy each year of its PQASSO certificate.

 

The new funder agrees to share in this arrangement.  The provider will continue as before but will now send a copy of the certificate to the new funder too.