An improved evaluation framework to support local level planning
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes396 views
The document presents a new evaluation framework for planning sustainable water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in decentralized local contexts, emphasizing data collection through water point mapping and household surveys. It introduces simple planning indices to prioritize communities based on water service needs and challenges, aiming to improve accessibility and quality of services. The framework also calls for collaboration among stakeholders and emphasizes the importance of updated, WASH-specific data for effective decision-making and resource allocation.
An improved evaluation framework to support local level planning
- 1. IRC Symposium 2013: Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Addis Ababa, April 2013 AN IMPROVED EVALUATION FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT LOCAL LEVEL PLANNING R. GINÉ, A. JIMÉNEZ, Ó FLORES & A. PÉREZ
- 2. OUTLINE 2 Background A new evaluation framework for planning Data collection, combining two sources of information Data analysis, through simple planning indices Data dissemination, through ranks and priority maps Basing decision-making on planning indices Challenges and Ways forward
- 3. 3 Decentralization offers the opportunity to define strategies for equity- oriented planning and post-project support. But core challenges that undermine decentralised targeting and prioritization: Local data is seldom available to support evidence-based planning. It is often WASH non-specific and out-of-date Allocation procedures prevents the poor from accessing the services Instruments for decision-making support are not easy-to-use A new approach for local planning is proposed BACKGROUND Ways Forward Planning framework Background
- 4. Access to data Establish Criteria Define Priorities Establish Budget Guidelines to fulfil priorities 4 NEW FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING Key Remarks Planning framework Background + WASH data collection, based on a Water Point Mapping and a Household-based survey Criteria to select targeted communities based on simple planning indices, instead of employing outdated and WASH-nonspecific data NAME OF INDEX FORMULA ACTION Coverage index 250* Population IWPofNumber Construction of New water points Functionality Index 100* IWPTotal IWPFunctofNumber Rehabilitation of existing water points. Seasonality Index 100* FIWPTotal FIWPRound-YearofNumber Actions to increase reliability of the source (catchment protection actions, regulation of different uses) and/or finding of additional sources Management Index 100* FIWPTotal FIWPManofNumber Management supporting activities (establishment of WUEs and/or support to establishment of tariff collection systems). Water Quality Index 100* FIWPTotal FIWPSafeofNumber Actions to improve quality of water: catchment protection, protection of WP, etc… If salinity is high and becomes dangerous, check other alternative sources WP. LOCATION Population 2009 Total Number WPs LIST 1 Coverage Index Rank 1 Priorities North Kabuoch 5.088 0 0% 1 North Kanyamwa 9.286 0 0% 2 Central Kanyamwa 15.244 3 9% 3 Homa BayTown 35.816 8 11% 4 Gem Central 22.047 5 11% 5 Gem West 13.193 3 11% 6 West Kanyidoto 10.228 3 14% 7 East Kanyada 37.900 13 16% 8 East Kochia 13.917 5 17% 9 West Kabuoch 10.693 4 18% 10 West Kochia 12.637 5 19% 11 Gongo 9.569 4 20% 12 South Kabuoch 26.332 12 22% 13 Central Kabuoch 19.489 9 22% 14 West Kanyamwa 17.714 10 27% 15 East Kagan 12.012 7 28% 16 Gem East 11.619 7 29% 17 West Kwambwai 15.347 10 31% 18 West Kanyada 16.726 12 34% 19 South Kanyamwa 14.156 11 37% 20 East Kwambwai 16.249 13 38% 21 Central Kanyidoto 6.103 7 55% 22 South Kanyikela 3.180 6 90% 23 West Kagan 8.972 21 111% 24 North Kanyikela 3.103 9 138% 25
- 5. 5 + Household survey WASH approach Socio-economic issues Mapping and audit of all improved waterpoints In each administrative subunit, a statistically representative sample of HHs is selected to assess WASH issues Great statistical precision + WASH data FIELD DATA COLLECTION Water Point Mapping Mapping of all improved water points (IWPs) Key Remarks Planning framework Background
- 6. Water Points (amongst others) Coverage Functionality Accessibility Continuity of the service Management issues Maintenance issues Water quality Seasonality 6 Households (amongst others) Time to fetch water Water consumption Affordability of water Sanitation Coverage Open Defecation Free Status Latrine sanitary conditions Hygiene practices in the vicinity of the latrine Point-of-use water treatment Handwashing knowledge WHAT INFORMATION DO WE GET FROM … Key Remarks Planning framework Background
- 7. 7 PLANNING INDICES Key Remarks Planning framework Background Simple indices may be adequate tools for planning and targeting support , as long as they are: defined in collaboration with end users easy to understand easy to calculate / assess easy to disseminate, through ranks and/or priority maps, and most importantly ... linked to a remedial action, such as construction of new WPs, rehabilitation of non-operational WPs, sanitation promotion campaigns, hygiene promotion campaigns, support to local water and sanitation committees, etc.
- 8. 8 Coverage Index of Improved Water Points (IWP) To estimate % of population covered by IWPs in a location, according to the sector standards of service level (1 IWP serves 250 people) 250* Population IWPofNumber IndexCoverage Location The index shows those locations where coverage is a priority. And for instance, new construction of WPs could be envisaged to improve water service level Data source: GRECDH (2011) Homa Bay, Kenya ONE EXAMPLE FROM WPM WATER COVERAGE INDEX Key Remarks Planning framework Background
- 9. The index shows those locations where water quality is an issue of concern. And for instance, actions to improve quality of water and prevent the source from being polluted could be envisaged, such as catchment and source protection, water treatment, etc. 9 Water Quality Index of Functional IWPs (FIWPs) To estimate % of FIWPs in a location with acceptable bacteriological quality at the time of the test, in relation to total number of FIWPs 100* FIWPTotal FIWPSafeofNumber IndexQuality Location ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM WPM WATER QUALITY INDEX Key Remarks Planning framework Background Data source: GRECDH (2011) Homa Bay, Kenya
- 10. 10 Water coverage Water quality Thresholds • High priority (red): < 25% • Priority (orange): 25 – 50% • No Priority (green): > 50% Thresholds • High priority (red): < 50% • Priority (orange): 50 - 75% • No Priority (green): > 75% WATER INDICES PRIORITY LOCATIONS & RANKS Key Remarks Planning framework Background Location Population 2009 WPs Coverage Index Coverage Priority Coverage Rank North Kanyamwa 9286 0 0% High priority 1 North Kabuoch 5088 0 0% High priority 2 Homa BayTown 35816 8 5% High priority 3 Gem Central 22047 5 5% High priority 4 Central Kanyamwa 15244 3 5% High priority 5 Gem West 13193 3 5% High priority 6 West Kanyidoto 10228 3 7% High priority 7 East Kanyada 37900 13 8% High priority 8 East Kochia 13917 5 9% High priority 9 West Kochia 12637 5 9% High priority 10 West Kabuoch 10693 4 9% High priority 11 Gongo 9569 4 10% High priority 12 South Kabuoch 26332 12 11% High priority 13 Central Kabuoch 19489 9 11% High priority 14 West Kanyamwa 17714 10 13% High priority 15 East Kagan 12012 7 14% High priority 16 Gem East 11619 7 14% High priority 17 West Kwambwai 15347 10 16% High priority 18 West Kanyada 16726 12 17% High priority 19 East Kwambwai 16249 13 19% High priority 20 South Kanyamwa 14156 11 19% High priority 21 Central Kanyidoto 6103 7 27% Priority 22 South Kanyikela 3180 6 45% Priority 23 West Kagan 8972 21 56% No priority 24 North Kanyikela 3103 9 69% No priority 25 Location Population 2009 Functional WPs Safe WPs Water quality Index Water quality Priority Water quality Rank Gem East 11619 6 1 17% High priority 1 Gem Central 22047 5 1 20% High priority 2 Central Kanyidoto 6103 6 2 33% High priority 3 North Kanyikela 3103 8 3 38% High priority 4 Central Kabuoch 19489 5 2 40% High priority 5 Central Kanyamwa 15244 2 1 50% High priority 6 West Kanyidoto 10228 2 1 50% High priority 7 Gongo 9569 2 1 50% High priority 8 South Kanyikela 3180 4 2 50% High priority 9 West Kagan 8972 19 11 58% Priority 10 East Kochia 13917 5 3 60% Priority 11 West Kochia 12637 5 3 60% Priority 12 East Kanyada 37900 11 7 64% Priority 13 South Kabuoch 26332 9 6 67% Priority 14 West Kanyamwa 17714 9 6 67% Priority 15 West Kanyada 16726 12 8 67% Priority 16 South Kanyamwa 14156 10 7 70% Priority 17 West Kabuoch 10693 4 3 75% Priority 18 East Kagan 12012 5 4 80% No priority 19 West Kwambwai 15347 7 6 86% No priority 20 Homa BayTown 35816 8 7 88% No priority 21 Gem West 13193 3 3 100% No priority N.A. East Kwambwai 16249 11 11 100% No priority N.A. North Kabuoch 5088 0 0 0% No FIWP N.A. North Kanyamwa 9286 0 0 0% No FIWP N.A.
- 11. 11 FROM DATA TO ACTION Key Remarks Planning framework Background IMPLEMENTATION Transparent definition of priorities based on objective data Share with Stakeholders Accountability to end users and stakeholders about implementation COMUNICATIONDEFINITION Official Action / Investment Plan with budget guidelines Allocate budget for implementation Share with end users Coordinate actions for effective implementation
- 12. 12 FROM DATA TO ACTION Key Remarks Planning framework Background One “success” history at Same District, Tanzania: Definition of priorities based on WPM data Formal inclusion of priorities in the official district planning guidelines, 2010-2012 saw that half of the prioritized villages (mostly in terms of construction/rehabilitation) had benefited from investment. Today, Priority Document is the tool of Same District Council to allocate priorities.
- 13. WASH-specific and updated data is essential to support evidence-based planning. Cost of data collection is reduced in comparison with sector- related investments (new infrastructure) These data (WPM and HH-based) can be easily exploited through simple planning indices to inform decision-makers about WASH status and related service level. Suggested key areas for better planning include, but are not limited to: Water Points Coverage Functionality Management Maintenance Accountability Water quality Seasonality 13 Households Sanitation Coverage Open Defecation Free Status Latrine sanitary conditions Point-of-use water treatment Handwashing knowledge Key Remarks Planning framework Background KEY REMARKS (I)
- 14. Based on planning indices, priorities can be established using league tables and / or priority maps. Depending on the problem at hand different actions might be planned: Construction of new improved water points; Rehabilitation of non- functional existing systems; Management – support activities (establishment of WUAs, establishment of tariff collection, ...); Water quality improvement (catchment management, surveillance, ...); etc. New developed tools are simple to understand and easy-to-calculate. After priorities definition, they need to be included in the strategic plan, and resources should be allocated accordingly: Establish budget guidelines to fulfil priorities, and share set priorities with sector stakeholders Align donor’s strategies within the Action Plan 14 Key Remarks Planning framework Background KEY REMARKS (II)
- 15. To improve decentralized planning … A. The continued use of developed instruments requires effective appropriation by decision-makers, which in turn depends on: o Engagement of end-users throughout the process o Design of user-friendly instruments o But also continued support to local authorities o Multi-stakeholder alliances between governments, academics, consultants and NGOs o Political will and commitment at all levels (from central government to local authorities) 15 Key Remarks Planning framework Background CHALLENGES & WAYS FORWARD (I)
- 16. To improve decentralized planning … B. The evaluation framework needs to be rethought to allow data updating and foster replicability: o Systematic data collection methodologies need to be designed to promote bottom-up updating mechanisms o Data analysis often goes beyond the means and capacities of local technicians, thus requires external support (at least in the short run) o Dissemination of data-based outcomes through ranks and league tables can be easily tackled through pre-programmed spreadsheets ... but GIS-related skills are not easily found at local level 16 Key Remarks Planning framework Background CHALLENGES & WAYS FORWARD (II)
- 17. THANK YOU R. GINÉ, A. JIMÉNEZ, O. FLORES & A. PÉREZ RICARD.GINE@UPC.EDU ALEJANDROJFP@GMAIL.COM OSCAR.FLORES.BAQUERO@UPC.EDU & AGUSTI.PEREZ@UPC.EDU IRC Symposium 2013: Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Addis Ababa, April 2013