development and use of service delivery indicators for monitoring rural water servicesin ghana,...

Development and use of service delivery indicators for monitoring rural water services

in Ghana, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Honduras, Paraguay, El Salvador

Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery SymposiumAddis Ababa, 10 April 2013

By: Marieke Adank, Stef Smits, Valérie Bey, Jeske Verhoeven and Christelle Pezon

Monitoring Sustainable WASH service Delivery Symposium April 2013

What are service delivery indicators?

• Set of indicators for assessing and monitoring rural water service delivery: – the level of water service provided– the performance of service providers – the performance of service authorities


Service level

Criterion, measured through the following indicators: • Reliability• Accessibility• Water quantity• Water quality• User satisfaction• Affordability


Example of service level indicator scores

Reliable: 69%

Non-crowding: 72%

Distance: 83%

Quality: 94%

Quantity: 51%

Service levelBasic services: 34%

Sub-standard services: 38%

Not providing services: 29%

Functional: 67%

Number of point sources: 249

Akatsi district, Volta region, GhanaFunctionalityReliabilityDistanceCrowdingQualityQuantityService level


Service provider indicators

Indicators related to the following criteria: • Organisation and governance • Administration and accountability of the

service provider• Financial management• Technical and operational management


Service authority indicatorsIndicators related to the following criteria: • Capacity of service authority• Strategic planning• Coordination • Pre-construction support• Monitoring • Technical assistance to service provider

Authority functions

Support functions


Scoring of indicators• Use of narrative scoring tables, to convert data on

parameters into quantitative indicator scores• Benchmark set at minimum normative level

Example: Indicator: A well qualified and trained gender balanced WSMT is in placeParameters: • Number of male and female

members• Separate cashier and caretaker

functions• Number of vendors• Training of WSMT

Score Narrative description

100There is a WSMT. Its composition is in line with the CWSA guidelines and its members have received refresher training on at least bi-annual basis

75There is a WSMT. Its composition is in line with the CWSA guidelines and its members have received refresher training on an irregular basis

50

Benchmark: There is a WSMT. Its composition is in line with the CWSA guidelines (Gender Balance; separated cashiering function and caretaking function; Vendors are engaged at each water point) and it has received initial training

25

There is a WSMT, which has been composed in line with the CWSA guidelines (Gender Balance , separated cashiering function and caretaking function, vendors engaged at each water point), but the WATSAN has not received initial training

0

The composition of the WSMT is not in line with the CWSA guidelines (Gender Balance and / or no separated cashiering function and caretaking function and / or vendors are not engaged at each water point)


Aggregation of scoring

• Proportion of units (systems, service providers, service authorities) meeting the benchmark

• Sum of scores on indicators or criteria• Averages of scores on indicators or criteria


Example of aggregated scores per area (district)

Average governance in-dicators

Average of operational indicators

Average of financial management indicators

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

AkatsiEast GonjaSunyani West

Ave

rage

sco

re

Com

positi

on o

f WAT

SAN

Reco

rd k

eepi

ng a

nd a

ccou

ntab

il-ity

No

politi

cal i

nter

fere

nce

Spar

e pa

rt su

pply

Area

mec

hani

c se

rvic

es

Corr

ectiv

e m

aint

enan

ce

Perio

dic

mai

nten

ance

Wat

er q

ualit

y te

sting

Reve

nue

and

expe

nditu

re

bala

nce

Fina

ncia

l man

agem

ent

Tariff

setti

ng

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AkatsiEast GonjaSunyani West

% o

f WA

TSA

Ns

mee

ting

the

benc

hmar

k

Source: Adank et al, 2013


Use and data requirements

• To enforce regulation and inform asset management and post construction activities at decentralised level

• To inform service regulation and macro level planning at national level

• To monitor progress against planned outcomes of interventions

• To inform policy dialogue and debate

‘Before’ and ‘after’ assessment in intervention area

Annual overview of differences in scores on indicator sets between areas

Regular overview of all service level and service provider indicator scores on (ideally) all units

Analysis of correlations between different indicators


SDIs in national monitoring systems

• SDIs have been developed based on national norms and standards

• Development and testing has taken place in close collaboration with stakeholders, led by government

• Interest by national and local governments to scale up and institutionalize the use of SDIs


Lessons learnt• Service delivery indicators are essential for assessing and

monitoring water service delivery• Service delivery indicators need to follow government’s norms and

standards. • Developing and using indicators may spark further development of

these norms and standards. • More indicators means more data collection efforts and possibly

resources needed. – However, resources related to monitoring mostly related to travel and

transport

• Need to find a balance between the amount and accuracy of data required at different levels, and the efforts it takes to collect this data


Thank you!

For further information, please visit:• www.irc.nl • www.washcost.info• www.waterservicesthatlast.org

http://www.irc.nl/

http://www.washcost.info/

http://www.waterservicesthatlast.org/

development and use of service delivery indicators for monitoring rural water servicesin ghana,...

Business