The State of Government Data Quality

DURING the course of the five-year Millennium Challenge Account Namibia (MCA-N) Compact, MCA-N carried out a series of audits on the quality of the data used by the organisation to report results.

Auditing data is critically important for an organisation like MCA-N, whose business model was always strongly influenced by a focus on results, meaning we relied heavily on data to make judgments about our progress and to inform decisions about the way forward.

To be credible and to really do a proper job of informing evidence-based decision making, data have to be “fit for purpose”. When you have solid facts and figures at your disposal you can make a much more convincing case in reporting progress, or in supporting a proposed strategy and plan of action, or in demonstrating the value of a sector – like tourism or vocational training, for example – to the national economy.

So the key premise for evidence-based decision making is that the data and other information on which those decisions are made are sound, in other words, it bears significance for the quality of the data and information upon which decisions can be made. MCA-N’s data quality audits have helped ensure that the figures we used had a solid basis and were verified as accurate and appropriate.

So, what were the findings from our government data quality reviews?

Primarily that, overall, government data sources are fit for purpose. That means that, for the most part, they can be considered credible.

There were, however, some areas of concern. Most of these had to do with the timeliness of the data, which is vital for user confidence and for informing decision making processes more substantially. Other concerns were related to human resource constraints and streamlining data collection systems.

Addressing the considerations and recommendations that arose from MCA-N data quality audits could go a long way towards fulfilling the potential that data producers have to make a positive difference in the development of this country: through the data that they produce and report, we can accurately measure the well-being of our fellow Namibians and thus inform decisions on the way forward.

Which brings us to another issue that is separate from, but related to, the production of data: the use of data. Good data can only take one so far; what matters most next is how those data are used to inform decisions, and we could do better as a country to make sound use of data for analysis, reporting and planning. Such processes – and the will to take the necessary follow-on action – would enable us to tackle the obstacles that impede the development of this country, which has so much potential. Appropriate use of good information could help turn that potential into reality.

Lastly, it is worth noting that MCA-N’s data quality review function not only audited the data sources, but also engaged with the relevant data producers and other stakeholders to ensure that they gave input on, and were well familiar with, the findings and capacitated them to the extent possible to address the recommendations. The input provided, formed part of an iterative process in the finalisation of the recommendations, with the objective to identify recommendations that were pragmatic and viable for implementation. A training component also gave the relevant institutions solid grounding for conducting or managing their own follow-up or new data quality audits.

With such a foundation, only the sky is the limit in terms of how far Namibia could go to set the bar for high-quality data and their use.