23 Tuesday Apr 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
You say it’s 101 [basic] but I say it’s still not being implemented.
My friend Bekele Abaire from CRS Ethiopia said this to another colleague who complained that a conference presentation on sanitation & hygiene monitoring was too basic.
23 Saturday Mar 2013
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Last week I went to the Sustainable WASH Forum and Donor Dialogues in DC. A theme of the conversations was roles and responsibilities, especially the roles of governments. One interesting debate was about who should be responsible for monitoring. Some said that governments should be solely responsible. There are some governments who are leading the way on this, but I and others believe that this doesn’t mean that development organizations shouldn’t also be accountable for their own work. If an organization visits water and toilet systems for years after they are built, they can learn from their successes and failures and make their future work better.
Since many organizations only do monitoring & evaluation (M&E) during development programs (see my thoughts after the Learn MandE conference), I think we need to use a new term like “services monitoring” to refer to the need for a way of confirming that water and sanitation services are still available to people.
|
780 million+++ |
783 million people without access to improved source of water[i]3 billion without access to safe water[ii]4 billion without access to safe, permanent, in home water[iii] |
|
2.5 billion+++ |
2.5 billion people without adequate sanitation[i]4.1 billion lack access to improved sanitation[iv] |
|
35-50% |
water and sanitation systems that fail within a few years of construction[v] |
|
Less than 5% |
water systems that are visited at least once after they are built |
|
Less than 1% |
water systems and toilets that are monitored regularly for the long-term after they are built |
Long-term service monitoring is critical for the ongoing improvement of implementing organization practice and understanding, as well as donor policies. Beyond helping individual organizations learn from their experience, services monitoring could reveal geographical or sectoral trends. What if each year, USAID, other government aid agencies, development banks, and major foundations pooled a portion of their funds for water & sanitation projects ? These funds could be used to ensure service monitoring for all (or a sample of) previous water and sanitation systems funded by those donors in a country or region.
With this information, they could identify region-wide problems and solutions. For example, declining amounts of water available from spring fed systems in a geographic region could point to a need for investing in water source protection and installation of household water meters to reduce leaks and wastage.
To remove some of the barriers to ongoing service monitoring, we recommend a way forward below.
As more service monitoring data become available and accessible, we’ll get past the statistics to specifics, leading to learning, and more effective performance. Thus, people in developing countries will have a better chance at reaping the life-changing benefits of safe water for life.
23 Saturday Mar 2013
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
#international, #monitoring, #sustainability, #WASH, effectiveness, failure, learning, magical thinking, maintenance, responsibility
Each year the United Nations highlights a theme for the year in water. Last year it was “Water & Food Security;” this year it’s “Water Cooperation.” But I think we should acknowledge the “Years of Magical Thinking.”
I recently read Joan Didion’s memoir “The Year of Magical Thinking” about her struggles to deal with the death of her husband. It was striking and sad. One example of magical thinking is that if a person doesn’t let the messenger into her house, he cannot deliver the horrible news. This made me think of decades of magical thinking we have collectively endured in the water and sanitation sector. As long as we don’t let the bad news about failures get personal, we don’t have to acknowledge our roles in solving the problems.
At conference after conference, speakers lament the “sustainability problem.” They quote failure statistics and talk about the need for research and best practices. And yet, the way we do business hasn’t changed much. This is either magical thinking or, according to Einstein, insanity (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
In program after program, development organizations think:
“If we build this water system, it will last.”
“If we build this latrine, people will use it and replace it when the pit is full.”
If we put handwashing stations at a school, the teachers will make sure there is soap.”
“If we set up water committees, they will make sure that people pay and that the system is maintained.”
“If we build this system, the government will replace it when the time comes.”
“If we give families a water filter, they will know how to clean it/replace it.”
And yet, evidence shows this is often not the case (see Sad Stats). On a site visit last year, I saw a new water system that was replacing (or intended to supplement) a system built by the government. According to the community, the government system lasted for 20 years but it wasn’t maintained by the government or the community. When it finally broke down completely, nobody had funds or felt responsible to replace the system. This is not the first time I’ve heard a similar story.
Here are some ideas for practical thinking:
And let’s save the magical thinking for the things we really can’t do anything about.
23 Wednesday Jan 2013
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
In a recent interview I was asked to describe the global water and sanitation crisis. I used to be able to quote the statistics confidently: “X billion don’t have water; X billion don’t have toilets.” The numbers, happily, have decreased over time. Or have they?
In March 2012, the World Health Organization trumpeted that the Millennium Development Goal for water had been met, early (the goals aimed for 2015)! This means that between 1990 and 2010, more than 2 billion people gained access to improved drinking water sources, such as piped supplies and protected wells.
So the world’s target is now the 783 million people still without access to safe drinking water.
Progress in Drinking Water & Sanitation?
Or is it? WHO & UNICEF, the authors of the Progress on Drinking Water & Sanitation 2012 report, cautioned that the measurement of water quality is not possible globally, and “Significant work must be done to ensure that improved sources of water are and remain safe.”
“Remain safe.” This brings me to the concern that we might be taking 2 billion steps forward, and 1 billion steps back. Knowing what we know about water system failures, how can we be sure that all the people counted as having improved (if not safe) water access will still have it next year?
Assuming the water is still flowing, is it actually of good quality? A study by the University of North Carolina estimates that 3 billion people don’t have access to safe water, using a more stringent definition that includes both actual water quality and sanitary risks. That figure is 2.3 billion more than the WHO & UNICEF official estimate.
And if you want to get really picky, consider the article by Gerard Payen, AquaFed president & member of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation. He states, “Depending on the criteria used to define satisfactory access to safe drinking water, the current need can be assessed to be either less than one billion people. . . or almost 4 billion (more than half the world’s population).” The bigger number is an estimate of users without “permanent and satisfactory safe drinking water supply in the home.” But hardly anyone is measuring the availability of water and customer satisfaction.
Payen defines access like most Americans would define it: “water of good quality, in sufficient quantity, and without need for additional treatment, on an almost constant basis, in their homes for their daily life.” I think that’s a reasonable target. If you agree, you have a chance to chime in on how the next set of global goals are defined; join the dialog here.
07 Monday Jan 2013
Posted in Improvements
This might sound obvious, but when you build a water system for a poor community, the point of it is to provide safe water to those families, reliably, for a long time – if not forever. That’s what charitable organizations are telling their donors, at least: “$25 will save a life!” Well, that water system is not saving lives if it breaks, is it?
So how does the charitable organization, or the donor, know if the water system is still working? The customers in the community know right away when it breaks, of course, but they often don’t know who to call. Governments in developing countries focus more on providing new water systems to communities than looking back to see whether old systems are still working. The organization that built it could send staff to visit the communities, but many say they don’t have enough funds or staff time to check all of the water systems regularly, or ever.
That’s why many people are looking to cell phones to help fill in the information gaps. If we armed community members with cell phones to report on their water system functionality, maybe we could get more real-time information. But what if we could get the handpump to directly report when it’s not working to the government, the handpump mechanic, the charitable organization, and/or the donor? Below I’ve described some new efforts that are interesting. However, as the lead Oxford researcher caveats: “There are a lot of gadgets and gizmos and devices out there, but those alone don’t really resolve the enduring problem of rural water supply sustainability,” says Rob Hope. “It’s really the institutional reforms that emerge from using the information in a more effective manner. That’s where our research is really focused.”
Remote monitoring alone won’t create sustainability, but if it these pilots show that it works over time, and the costs come down, these devices/tools can be built into program costs. Governments can require them, and use the data for decision-making. Donors can expect them, and use the data to decide where to give. Customers will finally have a connection to the people trying to help them. Then there will be no more excuses for not knowing whether water is flowing.
05 Wednesday Dec 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Attendees at the Learn MandE Forum; Bangkok 2012
Last week I attended the 1st Pan-Asia-Africa Learn MandE Conference in Bangkok. (M & E = monitoring and evaluation; in this case it was for international development programs). The conference was well organized and there was a good mix of implementing organizations, academics, donors, and a few software folks. I liked the size of the conference because all of us were able to attend all the sessions – no rushing around to other rooms to find particular topics of interest.
Marla Smith-Nilson and I presented on the Accountability Forum / WASH Sustainability Rating. We were surprised to find that we were among the very few people talking about 1) independent evaluations and 2) doing evaluations years after program completion.
Other presenters talked about a dizzying array of acronyms, methods and buzzwords – results based monitoring, outcome mapping, data flow diagrams, causality, value for money. I learned a great deal about M&E. I also learned that for most organizations, the M&E ends when the program ends. Because that’s when the funding ends.
I just don’t think you can measure the true results / outcomes / causality / value of any program while you are doing the program. Based on comments and questions from others at the conference, many them understand this and were frustrated by the resource limitations and lack of donor interest.
I also sat on a panel where we discussed our thoughts on the statement “Monitoring and evaluation is preoccupied with reporting to donors rather than ensuring projects make a valuable contribution to host communities.” Most of the panelists (except for the CIDA representative) agreed that yes, monitoring and evaluation is mostly about reporting. One panelist suggested that organizations could do a better job explaining to donors how monitoring and evaluation are integral to success and learning. I suggested that we have a huge rich database of past international development projects to review. Rather than trying to guess at what indicators might predict success, we could analyze projects that have led to lasting results and identify what factors contributed to that. This would save us all some time in program design and monitoring.
Many would ask, who would do that? Who would pay for it? I would ask instead, if we really are trying to improve the lives of poor people, how can we afford not to do it?
Links to all of the presentations, including ours, can be found here.
06 Tuesday Nov 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
#evaluation, #health, #monitoring, #sustainability, #uncwaterhealth, #WASH, #water, accountability, learning, rating
Last week’s Water & Health conference at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill was a great one. It’s always great to see old friends from the water sector and make new ones. Here are brief descriptions of the various things I was helping to promote:
The WASH Monitoring Exchange (WASHME) is a simple online platform for organizations that implement rural water systems to share their functionality data (and see data from other organizations). We got commitments from several organizations to share their data and currently there are about 3000 water points uploaded. Join the movement and share your data!
WASH Advocates, Global Water Challenge, and IRC presented a self-assessment tool for Sustainable WASH that is the next step after endorsing the Charter. While it is still under development, you can test it here.
The Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) Collective Impact Report will soon be ready for external distribution. Susan Dundon of MWA and I presented a poster about the findings.
Poster for UNC Water & Health Conference on MWA & Collective Impact
Marla Smith-Nilson of Water 1st and I presented this poster about the need for a WASH Sustainability Rating & plans for the future.
Poster for UNC Water & Health Conference about WASH Sustainability Rating
Emma Bones, Lily Ponitz, and Allie George (left to right), my summer interns from Georgia Tech, also presented a poster with the results of their research in Nicaragua. They have developed a useful rubric for comparing mobile monitoring and mapping tools and they had lots of people interested.
Georgia Tech smarties with their poster at the UNC Water & Health Conference
Poster for UNC Water & Health Conference: Mapping the Way
22 Monday Oct 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Young boy shows the school handpump is functional. Kanat Kebele, Ethiopia (photo: Susan Davis)
One of the main themes at the upcoming 2012 Water and Health Conference at the University of North Carolina is Monitoring and Evaluation for Sustainability. This reflects the growing interest in water supply, sanitation and hygiene monitoring. We all know that significant challenges continue to plague the WASH sector, with system failure rates of 30-50%. For this reason, more and more implementing organizations want better data to understand the results of their work over time, and philanthropists hope to understand the long-term impact of their investments. While many nifty tools for monitoring have been introduced recently, barriers remain that prevent organizations from conducting ongoing post-construction monitoring. Organizations say costs, time, skills, and knowing what to monitor make it difficult. And underlying all of this may be a fear that making the nameless statistics on failure specific to our organizations will affect our fundraising efforts.The WASHME initiative was developed by several leading WASH organizations to remove barriers to post-construction monitoring because we believe that monitoring is critical for the ongoing improvement of implementing organization practice and understanding. Furthermore, sharing this information publicly creates a safe space for us all – including funders – to learn from each other.
Join representatives of Blue Planet Network, Global Water Challenge, Improve International, IRC, Splash, Water 1st International, Water For People, and others at the WASHME side event Monday, October 29 at 10:45 a.m. to learn more about the plans to launch WASHME to a larger audience. This is a unique opportunity for WASH organizations to monitor and share their data in a simple yet powerful way. As more of us join together, we’ll get past the statistics to specifics, leading to learning, and more effective performance.
The WASHME website has been updated, click here.
See a list of other monitoring and evaluation related events at the UNC Water & Health Conference here.
25 Tuesday Sep 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
One of the themes of this year’s Water and Health Conference is monitoring and evaluation. Below I’ve listed side events and presentations that are related to monitoring, evaluation, indicators, and learning (at least what I can tell from the titles). Improve International is proud to be collaborating with several organizations at this conference (see events in blue). I look forward to seeing you there!
For the overall conference program click here.
8:30 am – 10:15 am – Planning & Monitoring for Greater Sustainability: Rural and Urban Perspectives on Sustainable Solutions for Improved WASH Services. Convened by Rotary International, Aguaconsult, Building Partnerships for Development, Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, USAID WASHplus Project, and Ideo.org
10:45 am – 12:15 pm – Establishing Common Indicators for WASH. Convened by Improve International, Water For People, A Child’s Right, Blue Planet Network, Water 1st and IRC
1:15 pm – 5:00 pm – Building Blocks for WASH: How Well are We Addressing Sustainability? Convened by WASH Advocates, GWC, Aguaconsult, IRC, and Improve International
1:15 pm – 3:00 pm – Monitoring Equity and Pro-Poor Performance – Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes. Convened by SHARE, UNICEF, WHO, WSSCC and UNC Water Institute
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm – Indicators for the Human Right to Water. Convened by UNC Water Institute
8:30 am – 10:15 am – Evidence Based Decision Making for WASH Investments. Convened by Clarissa Brocklehurst
10:45 am – 12:15 pm – After the MDGs: Post-2015 Indicators and Monitoring for Urban WASH. Convened by UNC Water Institute and UNICEF
2:30 pm – 3:30 pm [WASH in Schools track] Impact of a School-Base Water Supply and Treatment, Hygiene, and Sanitation Program on Pupil Diarrhea: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Matthew Freeman, Emory University ; Impact of a School-Base Hygiene Promotion and Sanitation Intervention on Pupil Hand Contamination in Western Kenya: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Leslie Green, Emory University
2:30 pm – 3:30 pm [Ecosystem Protection & Drinking Water Safety] Examples of Cross-Program Approaches for Sharing Drinking Water Indicators, Danette Boezio, RTI International
4:00 pm – 5:00 pm [WASH and Child Health] Impact of a Combined Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Intervention on Environmental Fecal Contamination and Child Parasite Infections in Western Kenya, Amy Pickering, Stanford University
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm [Poster presentation] Collective Impact: Do WASH partnerships create more impact than organizations working independently? And how do you measure that? Susan Dundon, Millennium Water Alliance and Susan Davis, Improve International
9:45 am – 10:45 am [WASH and Child Health] Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of a Village Level Intervention to Promote Handwashing with Soap in Rural Indian Households, Adam Biran, LSHTM ; Assessing Water Filtration and Safe Storage in Households with Young Children of HIV-Positive Mothers: a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Zambia, Rachel Peletz, LSHTM
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [Beyond 2015: Realizing Universal Access and Human Rights] – Best Practice in Hygiene Promotion Programmes: an Evaluation Template to Determine the Cost-Effectiveness of Different Strategies, Dr. Juliet Waterkeyn, Africa AHEAD; A Global Review of Capacity Building Organizations in Water and Sanitation for Developing Countries, Melinda Foran, CAWST
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [Sanitation Achievable and Sustainable to All] Special Challenges in Designing a Health Impact Evaluation of Rural Sanitation: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Orissa, India, Thomas Clasen, JD, PhD, LSHTM; Sustainability of a School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Intervention Two Years Following Implementation in Nyanza Province, Kenya, Richard Rheinghans, Emory University
1:15 pm – 2:15 pm [Southeastern US Water Challenges] Assessing Contaminant Intrusion in the City of Atlanta Distribution System Using and Automated Monitoring and Sampling Device, Dr. Ethell Vereen, Jr., Emory University
1:15 pm – 2:15 pm [M&E for Sustainability] Lessons Learned Using a Mobile Data Application for Monitoring in a Household Water Program Employing Biosand Filters, Ray Cantwell, Samaritans Purse; Sustainability Check: A Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme Monitoring Tool, Kristen Downs, UNC Chapel Hill
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm [Governance] Governance as a Predictive Indicator for Water Point Sustainability: Results from Ethiopia and Mozambique, Peter Lochery, CARE
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm [Household Centered WASH] Sustainability and Scalability of Ceramic Water Filters in Households with Inadequate Piped Water: Evidence from Honduras, Dr. Georgia Kayser, UNC Chapel Hill
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm [Water Supply & Water Quality] Development and Evaluation of Behavior Change Campaigns to Increase Fluoride-free Water Consumption: 3 Field Studies in Rural Ethiopia, Alexandra Huber, EAWAG; Resilient Infrastructure for Water Treatment: A Comparative Evaluation of AguaClara Plants and Package Plants in Honduras, Victoria King, Cornell University
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm [Poster presentation] A novel way to promote accountability in WASH: the first Water & Sanitation Accountability Forum and plans for the future, Marla Smith-Nilson, Water 1st and Susan Davis, Improve International
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm [Poster presentation] Mapping the way: testing methods to map water points in developing countries, Lily Ponitz, Allie George, Emma Bones, Georgia Institute of Technology [my summer interns]
9:45 am – 10:45 am [Making Sanitation Benefits Achievable and Sustainable for All] An ME& System for Measuring Compliance of Rural Water and Sanitation Projects in South Africa with National Policy, Design Standards, and Norms, L.C. Duncker, CSIR; Evaluation of Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Large Scale Sustainable Rural Sanitation Programs, Eduardo Perez, WSP
9:45 am – 10:45 am [M&E for Sustainability] Monitoring & Evaluation for Sustainable Scale-up: the Case of Dispensers for Safe Water, Jeremy Hand, Innovations for Poverty Action; Sustainability of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions in Communities in Central America, Rick Gelting, CDC
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [Making Sanitation Benefits Achievable and Sustainable for All] Community Led Total Sanitation: A Comprehensive Review of the Approach, Its Effectiveness and the Role of Key Internal Actors, Marissa Streyle, UNC-Chapel Hill; Factors Associated with Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities: Learning from East Java, Nilanjana Mukherjee, WSP
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [[M&E for Sustainability] Remotely Accessible In-Situ Instrumentation to Improve Accountability in Public Health Interventions, Evan Thomas, Portland State University
8:30 am -12:15 pm – Measuring Hygiene Behavior Change – A Decade of Community Health Club Case Studies. Convened by Africa AHEAD
8:30 am – 10:15 am – Water Quality and Emerging Contaminants: How to Assess, Improve, and Inform through Measurements. Convened by National Institute of Standards and Technology
10:45 am – 12:15 pm – Networking Session and Forum for mWASH Implementers. Convened by Pacific Institute
21 Tuesday Aug 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
#monitoring, #water, data, government, ICT4D, water point mapping
In July 2012, I visited Ethiopia and learned more about the national government’s admirable efforts to develop a National WASH Inventory. The proliferation of affordable mobile tools, cell phone towers, and user-friendly platforms for mapping and data collection has enabled several governments and humanitarian organizations to attempt large-scale mapping of water points. The benefits of knowing where your water points are, and whether they are functional, are numerous, and include:
Ethiopia National WASH Inventory: The full inventory is expected to be released by September 2012. Data collection for the inventory was launched in certain regions in November 2010. In December 2011, a 2.4 million birr project funded by the Ethiopia Ministry of Water & Energy to assess the WASH inventory of Addis Ababa was completed. It included an assessment of the types of toilets, water supplies in households, and their financial ability to pay for water fees. The information was collected through 1,276 trained people over three years.
In addition to Ethiopia’s work, I knew about other efforts, but I recently joined the Rural Water Supply Network’s Water Point Mapping group and learned of a few more, described below.
A sample map from the Liberia WASH Portal
Liberia WASH Portal: The World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) worked with the Government of Liberia to map 7000-plus rural water points. It was difficult to get to some of the remotest areas (see a video about it here). The findings of 60% functionality, and nearly 1 million citizens still without any access to improved resources, are helping the Government of Liberia to shape a new infrastructure investment plan. (For more information, click here.)
Sierra Leone STAT WASH database: WSP also used this process in Sierra Leone to map 27,000 water points.
Uganda’s Water Supply Atlas: Shows safe water supply coverage, functionality and distribution. The baseline survey was carried out in 2009/2010 and published in February 2011. (Also see the RWSN report with “golden rules” for sector performance management based on Uganda’s experience.)
Tanzania: Water point data has been collected for 13 districts and plans are underway to scale up the exercise nationwide.
Swaziland: WaterAid assisted UNICEF to trained the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Forum on water point mapping. In the pilot study they mapped water points in 8 of Swaziland’s constituencies to determine the number of water supply schemes that exist and whether they were functional. A further goal of the exercise was to compare infrastructure levels with population served in each constituency (an example summary is below – email us if you’d like to see the full report). 
Kenya: SNV in partnership with TWAWEZA and UNICEF will support the government of Kenya to carry out water point mapping in all 47 counties. They plan to complete 12 counties in 2012. SNV has two consultants (ERMIS and UPANDE) providing technical support to government staff, who will visit and map the water points.
There’s also a website that is hoping to collect this information called Water Point Mapping - it only has information from Tanzania right now.
Do you know of other national water point mapping databases? Please email us or share a link in the comments below.
