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

hpankhurst@care.org

http://thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/initiatives/global-water-initiative

http://water.care2share.wikispaces.net/