Impacts of post-construction support on theperformance of rural water supply in Colombia
Water MDGWater services that last    7 March 2012
Background• IADB re-entering into rural water supply and sanitation• Encountering sustainability issues around rural water...
Context• Different rural coverage figures depending on  definitions: 57% - 73%; if water quality is included in  the defin...
Methodology• Quantitative analysis to link characteristics of post-construction support to  service levels and performance...
Indicator sets• Indicator sets for: service levels, governance and  performance of service providers, support models• Scor...
Service ladderCoverage   Continuity of   Quality            Net quantity         User satisfaction       Total score     S...
Indicators for the governance and          performance of service providers•   Three sub-categories                       ...
Indicators for post-construction                  support• 3 characterizing variables  without score (direct/indirect,    ...
Findings: service levels• Most limiting factors are                                    Qualification           Number of s...
Findings: service provider                    performance•   Less than half (16) has an                                   ...
Contextual factors• Settlement size has no impact on service  level; performance differs significantly  according to settl...
90.0                                          80.0                   Score on performance                                 ...
Findings: relation between performance of        service provider and service level• Low level of correlation             ...
5.00                         4.50                         4.00                                                            ...
Findings: impact of post-construction                 support • Except for 2, all systems had received some external suppo...
Findings: impact of post-construction support                                                                           10...
Findings: impact of post-           construction support• Factors explaining degree of impact of post-  construction suppo...
90.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.0010.00 0.00        0 (n=2)     1-4 (n=16)     5-8 (n=13)   9-12 (n=4)   Más de 12 (...
Conclusions on the use of indicator                   sets• The sets at system level worked well; above the use of scoring...
Conclusions• Half of the surveyed systems had acceptable  levels of service; more than half had under-  performing service...
Conclusions• Nearly all systems receive some support, albeit it ad hoc• Those with structured post-construction support ha...
Recommendations• Strengthen performance of providers and indirectly service  levels, partially through post-construction s...
GraciasStef Smits (smits@irc.nl)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Post construction support colombia

772 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
772
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
266
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Aquí solo mostrar la tabla para explicar como se puede usar los indicadores para identificar los factores mas limitantes o mas positivos
  • Post construction support colombia

    1. 1. Impacts of post-construction support on theperformance of rural water supply in Colombia
    2. 2. Water MDGWater services that last 7 March 2012
    3. 3. Background• IADB re-entering into rural water supply and sanitation• Encountering sustainability issues around rural water supply in Latin America – Lack of statistics and data-bases on the state of rural water supply systems – Recognition of the need for post-construction support, but lack of detailed insight into key characteristics: how, what, when, who? – Lack of quantitative data to support claims for post-construction support• Request to IRC and CINARA to support this through research in Colombia:• Assess the effectivity and efficiency of various modalities for post-construction support to community-based water providers on the quality and sustainability of the water services delivered Water services that last 7 March 2012
    4. 4. Context• Different rural coverage figures depending on definitions: 57% - 73%; if water quality is included in the definition, only 12%• Decentralization since 1991: – Community-based service providers – Municipalities as guarantors of sustainable service provision• Role of post-construction support not made explicit – Some municipalities have taken this up; others not – National and regional government have set-up support programmes – Civil society initiative (AQUACOL and coffee growers association) Water services that last 29 Agosto 2011
    5. 5. Methodology• Quantitative analysis to link characteristics of post-construction support to service levels and performance and governance of service providers• Applied to 40 rural water systems, selected using stratified sampling in Caldas, Cauca and Valle del Cauca, supported by 7 different post- construction support models: – Business Culture Programme – national government – Housing Secretariat of Caldas – departmental government – Health Secretariat of Cali – municipal government – Aguas de Manizales – urban utility – Aguas Manantiales de Pacora – urban utility – AQUACOL – association of community-based service providers – Coffee Growers Association Caldas – No post-construction support Water services that last 7 March 2012
    6. 6. Indicator sets• Indicator sets for: service levels, governance and performance of service providers, support models• Scoring tables – Comparison – Aggregation – Quantifying qualitative data – Data collection: 1 day per system Water services that last 7 March 2012
    7. 7. Service ladderCoverage Continuity of Quality Net quantity User satisfaction Total score Service level(%) supply received (l/p/d)>90 Equivalent to IRCA between 0 Between 130-170 80% of respondents More than 4,5 High >23 hours/day and 5% (No l/p/d satisfied with risks) quality, quantity, continuity and tariff80-90 Between 20 IRCA between Between 100 -129 70% of respondents Between 3,75 Acceptable and 23 hours 5,1% - 14% (low l/p/d, or between satisfied with at and 4,5 risk) 171-200 l/p/d least three of the indicators60-79 Between 12 IRCA is Bewteen 50-99 50% of respondents Between 3 Deficient and 19 hours measured but l/p/d or between satisfied with at and 3,74 not met : 14,1% 201 -250 l/p/d least three of the - 80 (Medium to indicators high risk)<59 Less then 12 No water Less then 50 or Less than 50% of Below 3 Very deficient horas quality analysis more than 250 respondents or IRCA very l/p/d, or no water satisfied with three high, >80% quantity analysis indicators Water services that last 7 March 2012
    8. 8. Indicators for the governance and performance of service providers• Three sub-categories Performance level Score – Internal governance and legality: compliance with legal requirements, organisational structure, decision- making and accountability High performance More than 80 – Administrative management (incl Acceptable Between 60 and 79,9 commercial aspects and accounting) performance – Technical and operational Deficient Between 40 and 59,9 management (including water performance resources management tasks) Very deficient Below 40• Total 21 indicators, each with a performance maximum score of 1• Weighing factor per category Water services that last 7 March 2012
    9. 9. Indicators for post-construction support• 3 characterizing variables without score (direct/indirect, Score Performance level demand/supply-driven, costs) More than 6 High Between 4 and 6 Medium• 10 indicators with score to Less than 6 Low measure degree of formality• Based on semi-structured interviews and survey Water services that last 7 March 2012
    10. 10. Findings: service levels• Most limiting factors are Qualification Number of systems water quality and quantity: High 4 – Lack of information (22 Acceptable 16 systems had no data on Deficient 15 quality; 9 had no data on Very deficient 5 quantity) – Very high consumption levels• Not necessarily a problem for users; their main reason for (dis)satisfcation is continuity Water services that last 7 March 2012
    11. 11. Findings: service provider performance• Less than half (16) has an Governance and Administrative Technical acceptable of high score legality management management for performance Most common Customer Register of Water• Above all high scores in low scores relations materials metering administrative Gender Capacity of Catchment management (non- balance in the personnel management payment rate of only water of the water committee committee 15%) Most common Inter- Non-payment State of the• Low scores in “advanced” high scores institutional rates infrastructure technical management, relationships Accounting Autonomous particularly catchment Renewal of operations protection water committee Water services that last 7 March 2012
    12. 12. Contextual factors• Settlement size has no impact on service level; performance differs significantly according to settlement size• Technology type impacts on water quality and performance: more complex systems have better management• Age of systems mainly affects performance: older systems have significantly better management Water services that last 7 March 2012
    13. 13. 90.0 80.0 Score on performance 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Menos de 100 (n=14) 101-300 (n=16) Mas de 300 (n=10)Calificacion promedia en gestion Number of user families 14.0 16.5 23.2 tecnico-operativaCalificacion promedia en gestion 17.7 20.9 26.0 administrativa Calificacion promedia en 15.2 19.8 23.8gobernanza interna y legalidad Water services that last 7 March 2012
    14. 14. Findings: relation between performance of service provider and service level• Low level of correlation 5• Mainly at the extremes: best 4.5 performing service providers Score on service level 4 have best services and worst 3.5 R² = 0.156 performers have poorest 3 2.5 service, but blur in the middle 2• Performance of service 1.5 providers closest related to the 1 indicator of water quality 0.5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Score of service provider performance Water services that last 7 March 2012
    15. 15. 5.00 4.50 4.00 Calificacion promedia de satisfaccion de usuarios 3.50Score on service level Calificacion promedia de 3.00 calidad Calificacion promedia de 2.50 cantidad 2.00 Calificacion promedia de continuidad 1.50 Calificacion promedia de 1.00 Cobertura 0.50 0.00 muy deficiente deficiente aceptable alto (n= 3) (n=6) (n=18) (n=13) Performance of service provider Water services that last 7 March 2012
    16. 16. Findings: impact of post-construction support • Except for 2, all systems had received some external support the last year, some ad hoc, some structural post-construction support • Analysis with original classification and after re-classifying • Post-construction support does lead to statistically significant better performance of service providers, but not to better service levels • But, even with support the average performance is barely acceptable Number of systems Average performance Average score for service score of the service level providerSystems linked to post- 27 61.1 3.63construction support modelSystems without structured 13 48.1 3.52post-construction support Water services that last 7 March 2012
    17. 17. Findings: impact of post-construction support 100.0 Calificacion promedia de desempeno del prestador 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Programa Aguas Secretaria Sin modelo Comite de UES Rural Aguas de Cultura Manantiale AQUACOL Vivienda de apoyo Cafeteros Cali Manizales Empresaria s Pacora Caldas lCalificacion promedia en gestion tecnico- 14.7 14.7 17.2 17.1 19.0 17.7 20.2 26.9 operativaCalificacion promedia en gestion 18.6 20.7 20.1 19.9 19.5 25.6 21.6 30.9 administrativaCalificacion promedia de gobernanza y 17.4 15.0 17.7 18.3 17.8 23.7 25.2 25.6 legalidad Water services that last 7 March 2012
    18. 18. Findings: impact of post- construction support• Factors explaining degree of impact of post- construction support: – None of the originally identified factors appeared to be significant (neither scored nor other explicative variables) – Low correlation with the degree of formality of the support model (staff profiles and institutionalization) – Frequency of support activities – Inter-institutional set-up of models (models acting as node, referring to dedicated entitites) Water services that last 7 March 2012
    19. 19. 90.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.0010.00 0.00 0 (n=2) 1-4 (n=16) 5-8 (n=13) 9-12 (n=4) Más de 12 (n=5)• Performance of service provider in relation to frequency of support activities Water services that last 7 March 2012
    20. 20. Conclusions on the use of indicator sets• The sets at system level worked well; above the use of scoring tables was considered positive both by water committees and officials: – Main drawback is that standard regression analysis is not possible with categorised data – 5 + 21 indicators requires over 75 sub-indicators! – easy to collect much more information than needed – Key indicator missing is information management• The set of variables for the post-construction support model can identify the degree of formality of the model and describe it, but is not a set that can explain or predict its possible impact Water services that last 7 March 2012
    21. 21. Conclusions• Half of the surveyed systems had acceptable levels of service; more than half had under- performing service providers• Low scores particularly due to lack of data on water quality and quantity, and poor technical management• Relatively high scores in financial management and organisation – result of high emphasis given to this in Colombia• In different degrees explained by contextual factors (settlement size, type of technology, age)• Low correlation between performance of service provider and service received Water services that last 7 March 2012
    22. 22. Conclusions• Nearly all systems receive some support, albeit it ad hoc• Those with structured post-construction support have significantly better performing service providers; impact on service levels is positive but not significant• High variability within and between support models: not clear that one model works better than another; rather look at the underlying factors that explain effectivity of models: – degree of instutionalisation – frequency of support – inter-institutional character of support model• No clear data on costs or personnel to draw conclusions on efficiency Water services that last 7 March 2012
    23. 23. Recommendations• Strengthen performance of providers and indirectly service levels, partially through post-construction support• Clarify and specify mandates for post-construction support, whilst recognising the variety of mechanisms that already exists, with key role for municipalities• Focus on institutionalizing support roles of those models that score low currently• Use monitoring as tool to identify both generic (water quality, technical management) and provider-specific support needs• Strengthen devolution of information to service providers Water services that last 7 March 2012
    24. 24. GraciasStef Smits (smits@irc.nl)

    ×