Benefits of shared measurement systems: lessons from the MWA Ethiopia program
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•704 views
The document summarizes a shared measurement system used by the Mekelle Woreda Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Alliance (MWA) in Ethiopia. The MWA, comprised of 5 NGO members and 4 local partners, developed common monitoring policies, strategies and indicators to foster learning and improvement. Key aspects of the shared system included: - Collecting output and outcome data using standardized tools across all partners - Establishing 'core' indicators to monitor functionality of water systems, access to water and sanitation facilities, and hygiene behaviors - Conducting routine monitoring of water schemes, communities, schools and health facilities - Using data reflection exercises to prompt discussion of challenges and solutions
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Benefits of shared measurement systems: lessons from the MWA Ethiopia program
Similar to Benefits of shared measurement systems: lessons from the MWA Ethiopia program (20)
More from IRC
More from IRC (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Benefits of shared measurement systems: lessons from the MWA Ethiopia program
- 1. The Benefits of Shared Measurement Systems Lessons from the MWA-Ethiopia Program IRC Symposium April 9-11, 2013
- 2. Implementing in Ethiopia Since 2004
- 3. 5 MWA Members, 4 Local Partners Common Policies & Strategies EKHC 3
- 4. The Challenge: How do you foster learning that leads to improvement in an environment when there is often little room (time, resources) for it?
- 5. What to Monitor • Outputs = what org. does Each org uses own Each org uses own – # of water points constructed methods to monitor. methods to monitor. – # of hygiene trainings given Reports designated Reports designated indicators to Secretariat indicators to Secretariat • Outcomes = how target groups respond to what you did – # households using water point – WASHCOM makes needed repairs Use MEL Framework tools Use MEL Framework tools – Handwashing behavior change to monitor key outcomes. to monitor key outcomes. – Report to Secretariat Report to Secretariat # households constructing latrine
- 6. ‘Core’ Indicators for Output, Outcomes, and Impact: • % of functional systems; • % of households using an improved water source; • % of households with access to 15 liter per day from a protected water source; • % of households with access to water for productive uses; • % of households with access to improved latrines; • # of communities with open defecation free (ODF) status, • % of households with soap and water at a hand washing station; • % of people with knowledge of critical hand washing times. 6
- 7. Common MEL System 7
- 8. Outcome monitoring tools Indicator Type of info Data Tool Scope category collected collected by Water Functionality; Govt officer Water Scheme All intervention maintenance; or schemes Monitoring water schemes* governance; etc. NGO staff ‡ Form Adoption of Health Sample of hh in latrines, Household Extension kebeles that Community handwashing WASH Workers† or received WASH promotion facilities, water Checklist hired promotion treatment; etc. enumerators Progress 1 CLTS form for CLTS toward kebele each triggered CLTS Monitoring NGO staff ODF kebele Form declaration
- 9. Outcome monitoring tools Data Indicator Type of info collected Tool collected Scope category by School outcomes: WASH School materials put out; latrine Monitoring cleanliness; capacity to All Form Schools sustain; etc. NGO staff intervention (optional) Students outcomes: schools Rapid Student observed handwashing; Survey § latrine use; knowledge Facility outcomes: WASH Health materials made All Health Facility available; latrine NGO staff intervention facilities Monitoring cleanliness; capacity to facilities Form sustain; etc.
- 10. Data Reflection Tool (DaRT): A Qualitative Tool Designed to prompt reflection & discussion 1. Summarize information you gathered, and 1-2 most interesting pieces of information you learned. 2. Describe things that indicated your activities have prompted target group to progress toward achieving the relevant outcome indicators. 3. Describe things that suggest your activities have NOT prompted the expected response. 4. Is there anything your organization can do to address issues in #3? Do you have plans to take action? 5. Describe any potential threats to sustainability that you observed and what you plan to do to address them. 6. What would you like to ask or discuss with other MWP partners?
- 11. Costs of Monitoring • $150,000 USD to develop MEL Framework with the assistance of Emory University Center for Global Safe Water • $1,500 per partners per data collection exercise • $45,000 for data collection overall 3% of total grant budget dedicated to M&E
- 12. Challenges • Endless (?) Debate over indicators • Perceived costs & time required to do data collection • Translation in numerous languages • No provision for post-program monitoring or evaluation
- 13. Successes • Time series data collected by 9 partners in same format. • Partner level and program level analysis • Coordination with local and national government for information and data exchange • Early identification of weak areas (governance, sanitation progress)
- 14. MWA Theory of Change
Editor's Notes
- MWA-EP began in 2004. Between 2004-2011, over 750,000 rural Ethiopians gained access to WASH as a result of our collective efforts. In 2011, MWA started the third phase of the program with $6 million from Hilton for water and $7 million from other donors for sanitation and hygiene. Program Goal: Improve sustainable access to safe water, hygiene, and sanitation for rural Ethiopians through a partnership for implementation and collective advocacy. The current phase of the CNHF program will reach 483,000 beneficiaries in rural Ethiopia including 83,000 schoolchildren in 90 schools. An additional 130,000 people will be served through improved WASH facilities in health clinics.
- These partners have been working together since 2004. In July 2010, partnership took a big step forward with the adoption of a common ‘policies and strategies document’ that provides strategic direction and is a common framework for implementation standards across all partners. Policies and strategies document provides: Clear, agreed-upon definition of ‘improved’ water and sanitation for the program when counting beneficiaries reached Commitment to reach the ‘poorest of the poor’ -- at least the same percentage WASH coverage in the most difficult and challenging areas of the woreda (district) as is achieved elsewhere in the woreda (district) Promote IWRM and MUS Local Government Capacity Building, Cooperation and Advocacy Shared measurement & learning These are only a few examples, the policies and strategies document is a living document and a reference for how the program will be executed based on best practices, lessons learned from previous phases.
- In addition to these core indicators, an expanded set of indicators are being collected that will result in a more robust analysis of the multitude of factors that contribute to the success or failure of WASH programs.
- MWA strove to get where we are today for over 5 years. Worked with Emory University CGSW to design common monitoring & evaluation tools to be used by the partnership. The (E)valuation part is = baseline (completed in November 2011, baseline report and data analysis done) and evaluation (end of program) The (M)onitoring part is depicted in this graph and consists of a set of data collection tools and the process depicted above to collect and analyze bi-annual data from all partners. The (L)earning part is 3 action research studies between CGSW and MWA members: 1) social and emotional impact of water scarcity on women; 2) factors leading to sustainability and 3) mapping and assessing equity.