1
Dr. Helen PankhurstAddis Ababa, April 2013
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
4
Figure 1: Factors affecting sustainability (n = 269)
0 100 200
Governance
Finance
Technology
EnvironmentMost important
Second most important
Third most important
Least important of the four
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
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
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
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
◦ 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
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
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
community
committee
External
support
(government
/private
sector)
12
13
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
10%
29%
43%
10%
9%
Elderly relative
Head of household
Wife of head of household
Older adult
Young dependent
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
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
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
1. Value of ‘golden’ common indicators2. 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
http://thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/initiatives/global-water-initiative
http://water.care2share.wikispaces.net/