Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Water for Life: Promoting AccountabilityMonitoring WASH Services & the EnablingEnvironment Long After ImplementationSusan ...
We will discuss…• Why we need to promote accountability• Outcomes of pilot ratings in Honduras• How the evaluation has hel...
WHY DO WE NEED A WATER & SANITATIONSUSTAINABILITY RATING?
780 million+++783 million people without access to improved sourceof water (JMP)3 billion without access to safe water (UN...
1981USAID, 1981. The Role of Women as Participants &Beneficiaries in Water Supply & Sanitation Programs
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%0%Non-functioning water points in AfricaSOURCE: UNICEF, May 20072007
Water Points Now0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Failed Impaired Failed + ImpairedSierra LeoneSwazilandGhanaTanzaniaLiberia
A need for different language: “ServicesMonitoring & Services Evaluation”• M&E usually means just duringthe project timefr...
Who will a WASH Sustainability Rating help?People lacking access towater & sanitationWill have services that last. Increas...
HOW DOES THE RATING SYSTEMWORK?
The WASH Rating System:Trust but VerifySelf-AssessmentForumMemberDeskReviewFieldVisitRating/Certification
The WASH Rating• Currently voluntary• Higher standards than nonprofits wouldnormally pursue• Gives organizations an incent...
What is the rating based on?Key Domain Variable ScoreA. OrganizationalstructureCollaboration or coordination with other wa...
THE PILOT RATINGOF HONDURAN NGO
COCEPRADIL, an NGO in Lempira, HondurasIndependent expertsand peer evaluatorsinspect a spring.Video: https://improveintern...
Community of San Francisco, Honduras•20 year old system•Regular tariffpayment by users•Positive andincreasing bankaccount ...
ExtremeProblemsIdentifiedSomeExpectations MetAllExpectationsMetHighExpectationsMetWASH Sustainability RatingGiven to COCEP...
FUTURE PLANS
Overcome Barriers to Implementation• Building knowledge andconfidence of this toolwith governments &donors• Concerns fromo...
DSK – Bangladesh April 2013Participating peers: Water.org, WaterAid, Water ForPeople, CRS (invited)Conduct More Ratings
Create incentives: online resource forgovernments, banks & donorswashratings.orgWASH RatingsSouthAmericaWest Africa East A...
Create incentives: develop special fund to invest inprograms with green or blue ratingwashratings.org/hondurasWASH Ratings...
Establish Governing BoardReviewsperformancestandardsPermanent androtatingmembers Guides WASHRating/ForumOperationsGovernin...
PotentialBoardComposition4 rotating WASH funding organizations5 rotating certifiedimplementingorganizations2 government (w...
Discussion Questions• Is the life span limited to the duration of a project?No. In fact only considering 5 plus years afte...
For more informationSusan – sdavis@improveinternational.orgMarla – marlasmith@water1st.orgwww.improveinternational.org/pro...
Water for Life: Promoting Accountability: Monitoring WASH Services & the Enabling Environment Long After Implementation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Water for Life: Promoting Accountability: Monitoring WASH Services & the Enabling Environment Long After Implementation

693 views

Published on

By Susan Davis, Improve International. Prepared for the Monitoring sustainable WASH service delivery symposium, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9-11 April 2013.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Water for Life: Promoting Accountability: Monitoring WASH Services & the Enabling Environment Long After Implementation

  1. 1. Water for Life: Promoting AccountabilityMonitoring WASH Services & the EnablingEnvironment Long After ImplementationSusan Davis, Improve InternationalIRC Symposium on Monitoring SustainableWASH Service DeliveryApril 2013
  2. 2. We will discuss…• Why we need to promote accountability• Outcomes of pilot ratings in Honduras• How the evaluation has helped theorganizations• What we learned about the process and thecriteria• Barriers to implementation• Plans to scale up and sustain initiative
  3. 3. WHY DO WE NEED A WATER & SANITATIONSUSTAINABILITY RATING?
  4. 4. 780 million+++783 million people without access to improved sourceof water (JMP)3 billion without access to safe water (UNC)4 billion without access to safe, permanent, in homewater (AquaFed)2.5 billion+++2.5 billion people without adequate sanitation (JMP)4.1 billion lack access to improved sanitation (UNC)35-50%water and sanitation systems that fail within a fewyears of constructionLess than 5%water systems that are visitedat least once post-constructionLess than 1%water systems that receiveongoing long-term post construction monitoringOur strategy of trust isn’t working.
  5. 5. 1981USAID, 1981. The Role of Women as Participants &Beneficiaries in Water Supply & Sanitation Programs
  6. 6. 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%0%Non-functioning water points in AfricaSOURCE: UNICEF, May 20072007
  7. 7. Water Points Now0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Failed Impaired Failed + ImpairedSierra LeoneSwazilandGhanaTanzaniaLiberia
  8. 8. A need for different language: “ServicesMonitoring & Services Evaluation”• M&E usually means just duringthe project timeframe• Few incentives or resources topay attention over time• We propose “servicesmonitoring” – severalgovernments are launching now• And “services evaluation” whichis where this initiative falls –regular evaluation at pointsseveral years post-implementation• The only way to provesustainability
  9. 9. Who will a WASH Sustainability Rating help?People lacking access towater & sanitationWill have services that last. Increasedaccountability and better targetedinvestments will ultimately result inmore effective and sustainableprogramming for poor communities.Governments, Banks &DonorsWill be able to use projectsustainability ratings to target theirfunds towards high performingorganizationsImplementingorganizationsCan learn from each other and berewarded for facilitating sustainableWASH services
  10. 10. HOW DOES THE RATING SYSTEMWORK?
  11. 11. The WASH Rating System:Trust but VerifySelf-AssessmentForumMemberDeskReviewFieldVisitRating/Certification
  12. 12. The WASH Rating• Currently voluntary• Higher standards than nonprofits wouldnormally pursue• Gives organizations an incentive to maintainhigh standards• Based on similar self-regulatory systemsimplemented in other sectors (e.g., Fair Trade)
  13. 13. What is the rating based on?Key Domain Variable ScoreA. OrganizationalstructureCollaboration or coordination with other water and sanitation organizations blueOrganization is concerned with improving water and sanitation programqualityblueOrganization is sustainable and maintains solid business practices greenB. Water Services Water system after construction blueWater fee payment greenWater board policy greenC. Sanitation Most people in the community have access to a sanitary toilet greenToilets are well-used in a sanitary manner and users are satisfied with thetoiletsgreenUsers have replacement strategy for toilets not connected to sewage system blueD. HygieneEducationAll households in community have convenient access to a safe water supply greenHousehold water use is sufficient to meet all needs for consumption/hygiene blueHouseholds demonstrate increased health and hygiene awareness over time greenE. Project design& constructionThe community has legal authority for the water source and water system blueWater quality is tested and treated appropriately greenWater system is appropriately designed and well-constructed blueToilets/sanitation system is appropriately designed and well-constructed blueF. Water systemLong-term O&MSystem is well-used and users are satisfied with the system greenRepairs are addressed quickly and system undergoes routine maintenance yellowUser fees are paid by beneficiaries & system is financially self-supporting blueG. Water sourceprotectionAn active water source protection or environmental education componentexists in the communitygreenH. CommunitycommitmentCommunity makes a financial contribution to the capital cost of the project blueA competent local water board is created and functions effectively
  14. 14. THE PILOT RATINGOF HONDURAN NGO
  15. 15. COCEPRADIL, an NGO in Lempira, HondurasIndependent expertsand peer evaluatorsinspect a spring.Video: https://improveinternational.wordpress.com/programs/accountabilityforum/
  16. 16. Community of San Francisco, Honduras•20 year old system•Regular tariffpayment by users•Positive andincreasing bankaccount balance
  17. 17. ExtremeProblemsIdentifiedSomeExpectations MetAllExpectationsMetHighExpectationsMetWASH Sustainability RatingGiven to COCEPRADIL:
  18. 18. FUTURE PLANS
  19. 19. Overcome Barriers to Implementation• Building knowledge andconfidence of this toolwith governments &donors• Concerns fromorganizations• Acceptance of standards• Obtaining requiredinformation• Start up funds
  20. 20. DSK – Bangladesh April 2013Participating peers: Water.org, WaterAid, Water ForPeople, CRS (invited)Conduct More Ratings
  21. 21. Create incentives: online resource forgovernments, banks & donorswashratings.orgWASH RatingsSouthAmericaWest Africa East AfricaSouthern AfricaSoutheast Asiaproviding independent ratings of international WASH projectsCentral America
  22. 22. Create incentives: develop special fund to invest inprograms with green or blue ratingwashratings.org/hondurasWASH Ratings: Honduras132451. COCEPRADIL2. Agua Org A3. Agua Org B4. Agua Org C5. Agua Org D
  23. 23. Establish Governing BoardReviewsperformancestandardsPermanent androtatingmembers Guides WASHRating/ForumOperationsGoverningBoardEnsureadequatefinancialresourcesSecuresWASH sectorendorsements
  24. 24. PotentialBoardComposition4 rotating WASH funding organizations5 rotating certifiedimplementingorganizations2 government (water ministry) and WASH research institutionrepresentatives1 independent evaluator representativeGoverning Board Members
  25. 25. Discussion Questions• Is the life span limited to the duration of a project?No. In fact only considering 5 plus years after implementation• Are they integrated in country-led monitoring systems?Possibly can be, but this is evaluation vs. monitoring• Who is the long term owner of the frameworks and theinformation gathered with them?We hope that ultimately this will be country-led initiative(either by Government or National Water Network)• What are the incentives beyond the project to use theframeworks?More funds to high performing organizations; moreconfidence could lead to greater investment in the sector
  26. 26. For more informationSusan – sdavis@improveinternational.orgMarla – marlasmith@water1st.orgwww.improveinternational.org/programs

×