By Dr. Helen Pankhurst, CARE. Prepared for the Monitoring sustainable WASH service delivery symposium, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9-11 April 2013.

1. 1
Dr. Helen Pankhurst
Addis Ababa, April 2013

2.  Fundamental importance of more joined up monitoring
(ideally same indicators for different
stakeholders, different levels)
 CARE in S. Gondar: woreda to Zonal approach working with
government to standardize data & increase service
 However, value of additional monitoring to explore/drill
down on particular ideas. Just as GIS mapping, mobile
apps, are game-changing, so to is exploring different
themes/approaches to monitoring
 Shouldn’t focus all our energies on harmonized data
2

3. 3

4. 4
Figure 1: Factors affecting sustainability (n = 269)
0 100 200
Governance
Finance
Technology
Environment
Most
important
Second most
important
Third most
important
Least
important of
the four

5.  Objective: 1) attention on the areas we know
to be problematic – focus itself improves
sustainability 2) identify a few key questions
that can predict sustainability?
 Community/committee involvement in
scoring so immediate benefit at community
level: discussion + social audit element
 Can aggregate data, do statistical analysis on
it, benefits at higher levels + maybe pull out
most important factors
5

6.  83% of schemes plan for O&M
 Funds generated in advance in
57% of cases
 32%, indicated that the tariffs
had increased
 21 % had made advanced
expenditure on spares, etc
 Only 67% are just about
covering costs
6

7. 7
 Questions looking at a whole set of questions probing
participation, inclusion, transparency, accountability
 Some of the feedback is very positive. E.g. in terms of
inclusion, 95 % reporting that all community members use
the services equally and equitably
 Generally strong areas in terms of initial participation and
inclusion

8. 8
Figure 3: Committee and officer bearer selection (n = 276)
2%
18%
80%
The committee and
office bearers were
selected not elected
It is unclear, mixture of
selection and community
voice
The committee and
office bearers were
elected by the
community

9. ◦ 1st election vs. terms of office
◦ Initial community engagement vs. ongoing
mechanisms to continue this
◦ Financial accountability in construction vs.
regular financial reporting-back to the
community
◦ Awareness and reactions to changing
income/expenditure of scheme
◦ Bylaws set up - but ones that people know
about, refer to and update over time?
9

10.  Used three indicators of functionality
(service, water, functioning). 15
Finance/Governance questions statistically
significant:
1. The process regarding committee elections
2. Community awareness of committee roles &
responsibilities
3. Existence and functionality of bylaws
4. Training and capacity regarding basic
maintenance
5. Length of time to fix if broken due to a financial
problem
# 5– 15 continued on next slide…
10

11. 6. Purchase of parts for preventative maintenance
7. The overall financial situation of the scheme
8. How funds needed for O&M are raised
9. Where funds are kept
10. Committee knowledge/practice of record
keeping
11. Presence of at least two people involved in
finances
12. Community knowledge of finances of scheme
13. Existence of audits or external finance checks
14. Plan for break downs & loss of trained staff
15. Forward planning
11

12. community
committee
External
support
(government
/private
sector)
12

13. 13

14.  Water+ initiatives often report benefits to women
as a whole, easy to get data affirming this
 But women’s experiences are mediated by
age, position in the household, wealth, disability
etc. How do these factors affect how women
experience water+ intervention and how effective it
is?
14

15. 15
10%
29%
43%
10%
9%
Elderlyrelative
Head of household
Wife of head of household
Older adult
Young dependent

16.  Dignity: (86%) Heads of households rather than elderly
relatives, young dependents or other adults in the
household were more likely to report increases in
respect/dignity
 Leisure Time: (74%), time for socializing (77%).
Relatively poor women more likely to report
improvements compared to women in the middle
income status
 Equality: (80%), Disabled women were more likely to
report greater equality compared to non-disabled
women
16

17.  Committees: Married women in particular but also
widows were more likely than single women to take
on these roles. Women with young and old children
were more likely than women with no children
_____________________
 But if there are all these differences in how women
engage in/report on services, what does that mean in
terms of equity ?
 From an effectiveness point of view are we involving
those who can best serve the schemes?
 From an equity or even a transformational agenda are
we ensuring that those could can benefit the most are
involved?
17

18.  Further studies - Whose is least likely to be
heard? What’s the impact on the effectiveness of
the service? Looking for more than equitable –
looking for transformative change?
 The importance of developing a better an
understanding of the heterogeneity of women’s
experiences both the effectiveness of the service
provided, and its potential for transformative
impact.
18

19. 1. Value of ‘golden’ common indicators
2. But need to keep innovating. E.g.1: the idea
of a few predictive indicators of
sustainability
3. E.g. 2: Refining our understanding of who
benefits and how to promote a better
service and/or be more transformational?
4. Importance of social audit/community voice
approaches given all the attention to
global/national/project levels+ monitoring
that immediately loops back into improved
services
19

20. 20
hpankhurst@care.org
http://thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/initiatives/global-water-initiative
http://water.care2share.wikispaces.net/