ministry of urban development government of india...

Ministry of Urban DevelopmentGovernment of IndiaNirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 011Phone: 011-23062309, 23061295www.urbanindia.nic.in P

ho

togr

aphs

by

the W

ater

and

San

itat

ion P

rogr

amC

reat

ed

by

Wri

te M

ed

ia

HANDBOOK OF

SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKING

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENTGOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Ministry of Urban DevelopmentGovernment of India

HANDBOOK OF


2

SECTION I: Service Level Benchmarking in the Context of PerformanceManagement of Urban Services 9

1.0. Introduction to Service Level Benchmarking

1.1. Need for Service Level Benchmarking

1.2. Performance Parameters for Basic Urban Services

1.3. Roles of Different Stakeholders

1.4. Limitations and Challenges in Implementing Performance Management SystemsUsing Service Level Benchmarks

1.5. Standardisation of Service Level Benchmarks

1.6. Structure of the Handbook

SECTION II: Service Level Benchmarks 19

2.0. Service Level Benchmarks

2.1 Water Supply Services

2.1.1 Coverage of Water Supply Connections

2.1.2 Per Capita Supply of Water

2.1.3 Extent of Metering of Water Connections

2.1.4 Extent of Non-Revenue Water

2.1.5 Continuity of Water Supply

2.1.6 Quality of Water Supplied

2.1.7 Efficiency in Redressal of Customer Complaints

2.1.8 Cost Recovery in Water Supply Services

2.1.9 Efficiency in Collection of Water Supply-related Charges

2.2 Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation)

2.2.1 Coverage of Toilets

2.2.2 Coverage of Sewage Network Services

2.2.3 Collection Efficiency of the Sewage Network

2.2.4 Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Capacity

2.2.5 Quality of Sewage Treatment

CONTENTS

3HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

2.2.6 Extent of Reuse and Recycling of Sewage


2.2.8 Extent of Cost Recovery in Sewage Management

2.2.9 Efficiency in Collection of Sewage Charges

2.3 Solid Waste Management

2.3.1 Household Level Coverage of Solid Waste Management Services

2.3.2 Efficiency of Collection of Municipal Solid Waste

2.3.3 Extent of Segregation of Municipal Solid Waste

2.3.4 Extent of Municipal Solid Waste Recovered

2.3.5 Extent of Scientific Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste


2.3.7 Extent of Cost Recovery in SWM Services

2.3.8 Efficiency in Collection of SWM Charges

2.4 Storm Water Drainage

2.4.1 Coverage of Storm Water Drainage Network

2.4.2 Incidence of Water Logging/Flooding

SECTION III: Making Service Level Benchmarking Operational 79

3.1. Performance Report Cards

3.1.1 Initiating Performance Reporting

3.1.2 Performance Report Cards

3.2. Sustaining the Performance Management System

ANNEX: Illustrative Performance Report Card 85

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Performance Management System

Table 1: Suggested Frequency and Jurisdiction of Reporting

4

BSUP Basic Services to the Urban Poor

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation

DMA District Metering Area

FY Financial Year

GIS Geographic Information System

ICAI Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

ILCS Integrated Low Cost Sanitation

JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

MoUD Ministry of Urban Development

NRW Non-Revenue Water

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PROOF Public Record of Operations and Finance

RWA Resident Welfare Association

SLB Service Level Benchmark

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

SWM Solid Waste Management

ULB Urban Local Body

Units of Measure

lpcd litres per capita per day

m metre

km kilometre

Conversions

Crore = 10,000,000

ABBREVIATIONS


SecretaryMinistry of Urban Development

Nirman BhawanNew Delhi

India’s rapid economic growth in the last two decades has been accompanied by increased levels ofurbanisation. Our cities, which are engines of growth, are under great strain to meet the growingdemands and aspirations of their people.

Recognising the growing importance of improving efficiency in delivery of basic services in our cities, theGovernment of India has launched a series of initiatives aimed at enabling urban local bodies to meet theunprecedented challenges that they face today. These include schemes such as the Jawaharlal NehruNational Urban Renewal Mission, Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and MediumTowns, Capacity Building for Urban Local Bodies, National Urban Transport Policy, National UrbanSanitation Policy, National Mission Mode Project on E-governance and credit rating of selectmunicipal bodies.

As part of the ongoing endeavour to facilitate critical reforms in the urban sector, the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment has now adopted National Benchmarks in four key sectors—Water Supply, Sewerage, SolidWaste Management and Storm Water Drainage. Investments in urban infrastructure have, however, notalways resulted in corresponding improvements in levels of service delivery. There is, therefore, a needfor a shift in focus towards service delivery. This is especially the case in water supply and sanitation.It is hoped that the Handbook of Service Delivery Benchmarking developed by the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment through a consultative process shall provide a standardised framework for performancemonitoring in respect to water supply, sewerage, solid waste management services and storm waterdrainage, and would enable State level agencies and local level service providers to initiate a process ofperformance monitoring and evaluation against agreed targets, finally resulting in the achievement ofservice level benchmarks identified in the Handbook.

The Ministry of Urban Development would facilitate the adoption of these benchmarks through its variousschemes and would also provide appropriate support to municipalities that move towards the adoption ofthese benchmarks. I encourage all State and local level functionaries to use this Handbook in achievingour shared goal of improved service delivery for our citizens.

Secretary (Urban Development)

Dr. M. Ramachandran

FOREWORD


Joint SecretaryMinistry of Urban Development

Nirman BhawanNew Delhi

The Ministry of Urban Development initiated an exercise to develop standardised service level benchmarkswith respect to basic municipal services in the year 2006. Subsequently, a core group comprising theInstitute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the Public Record of Operations and Finance (PROOF),the Water and Sanitation Program–South Asia (WSP–SA) and Municipal Commissioners of Pune,Bangalore, Jaipur, Hyderabad and Kolkata was constituted by the Ministry of Urban Development, whichdeveloped a draft Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking that was circulated among all the States andother key stakeholders. Based on the comments received, the draft was revised and a National LevelWorkshop was held in July 2008 for the adoption of benchmarks with respect to basic municipal servicesrelated to water supply, sewerage, solid waste management and storm water drainage.

This Handbook is a result of work done over a period of about two years and is designed to enable thesystematic and sustained monitoring of services using standardised indicators against agreed targets andbenchmarks. It will help effect performance improvements in the identified service sectors by (i) helpinglocal decision-makers identify gaps, plan and prioritise improvement measures; (ii) enabling theidentification and transfer of best practice; (iii) enhancing accountability to customers for service deliverylevels; (iv) providing a framework that can underlie contracts/agreements with service providers; and(v) making it possible to link decision-making on financial allocations to service outcomes.

It is expected that State governments and cities would adopt this performance monitoring framework atthe Urban Local Body (ULB)/parastatal level, and undertake to regularly collate and analyse theperformance data to improve the quality of the decision-making process in the sectors identified in thisHandbook. Its adoption by all States shall facilitate uniform measurements and reporting systems, whichwill be of immense help to the management of the service utilities in making the right comparisons aimedat improving the efficiency of the infrastructure. It shall also be of great help in shifting the focus frominfrastructure to service delivery.

I would like to sincerely thank all the persons associated with this exercise, especially all the StateGovernment Secretaries of Urban Development, Municipal Commissioners, WSP–SA, CRISIL, PROOF, ICAIand Technical Cell (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission [JNNURM]) in the preparation ofthis Handbook. I am also grateful for the support received from the Secretary, Urban Development,Dr. M. Ramachandran, who has been the driving force behind this exercise. I indeed hope that thisHandbook would mark a watershed in the urban sector.

Joint Secretary (Urban Development)

A.K. Mehta

PREFACE

7

8

BENCHMARKS AT A GLANCE

2.1 Water Supply Services

S. No. Proposed Indicator Benchmark

2.1.1 Coverage of water supply connections 100%

2.1.2 Per capita supply of water 135 lpcd

2.1.3 Extent of metering of water connections 100%

2.1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) 20%

2.1.5 Continuity of water supply 24 hours

2.1.6 Quality of water supplied 100%

2.1.7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%

2.1.8 Cost recovery in water supply services 100%

2.1.9 Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges 90%

2.2 Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation)


2.2.1 Coverage of toilets 100%

2.2.2 Coverage of sewage network services 100%

2.2.3 Collection efficiency of the sewage network 100%

2.2.4 Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 100%

2.2.5 Quality of sewage treatment 100%

2.2.6 Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 20%


2.2.8 Extent of cost recovery in sewage management 100%

2.2.9 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 90%

2.3 Solid Waste Management


2.3.1 Household level coverage of solid waste management services 100%

2.3.2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 100%

2.3.3 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste 100%

2.3.4 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered 80%

2.3.5 Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste 100%


2.3.7 Extent of cost recovery in SWM services 100%

2.3.8 Efficiency in collection of SWM charges 90%

2.4 Storm Water Drainage


2.4.1 Coverage of storm water drainage network 100%

2.4.2 Incidence of water logging/flooding 0

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES


SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING INTHE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

10

1.1 NEED FOR SERVICELEVEL BENCHMARKING

Every sector has a few key performance indicatorsthat are understood by most stakeholders in thatsector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there havebeen a number of performance indicators relatedto urban management and service delivery thathave been defined, measured and reported.However, most initiatives in performancemanagement so far have been observed to havesome key limitations:

aDifferent sets of performance indicators havebeen defined under different initiatives;

a The definition or the assessment method mayvary for the same performance indicator, thusinhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons;

aMost measurement exercises have beenexternally driven (by agencies external to theagency responsible for delivery against those

performance parameters), leading to the key issueof ownership of performance reports;

aMost performance measurement initiatives havenot been institutionalised, limiting the benefits ofmonitoring trends in performance over time; and

a The process of performance measurementhas not been taken forward into performancemanagement (Figure 1).

These limitations mean that systems for measuringperformance and taking further action on themhave not been institutionalised in urban agencies.It is therefore important that the basic minimumstandard set of performance parameters arecommonly understood and used by allstakeholders. Depending on the specific need,additional performance parameters can bedefined and used.


INTRODUCTION TO SERVICELEVEL BENCHMARKING1.0


FIGURE 1: PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Measuring service levels of civic agencies impliesmeasuring outcomes, and indirectly also reflects oninstitutional capacity, financial performance andother parameters. Service level parameters can bemeasured either from a utility manager’s/planner’sperspective or from a citizen’s or consumer’sperspective. In addition, to facilitate comparisonbetween cities/service delivery jurisdictions, andchanges in performance over time, it is importantthat the performance levels are benchmarked, andmonitored against those benchmarks.

It is in this context, that the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment (MoUD) has initiated an exercise todefine Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs). The MoUDconstituted a ‘Core Group for Service Level

Benchmarking,’ comprising experts from variousinstitutions to arrive at the SLBs. Drawing on theexperiences of various initiatives in measuringservice level performance, the Core Groupnarrowed down the exercise to four basic urbanservices to begin with, and arrived at sets ofindicators in each. After much deliberation,the indicators, their definitions, means ofmeasurement, frequency and jurisdiction ofmeasurement and reporting, etc., were finalised.

The Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking isa ready reckoner to enable Urban Local Bodies(ULBs) and other city level parastatal agenciesimplement systems for measuring, reporting andmonitoring the SLBs.

12

1.2 PERFORMANCE PARAMETERSFOR BASIC URBAN SERVICES

Service level performance parameters have beenidentified for four basic urban services:

aWater Supply;

a Sewage;

a Solid Waste Management (SWM); and

a Storm Water Drainage

These parameters have been defined primarilyfrom a utility manager’s/planner’s perspective.In other words, the parameters highlight theperformance as would be monitored by theleadership/management of ULBs or other civicagencies. These performance measurements willneed to be carried out by the service deliveryagencies themselves, reported to higher levels ofmanagement and also disseminated widely.Clear definitions and methodologies are expectedto eliminate bias in measurement and reporting.

Performance from a citizen’s or consumer’s point ofview is better measured by capturing theirperception, rather than data from the deliveryagency. Measuring citizens’ perception can besupplemented by reporting by the agenciesthemselves, and can offer interesting insights whencompared with one another.

Performance parameters should be applied acrossall cities and regularly used by all stakeholders.Practical considerations will drive frequency ofmeasurement and reporting; and the jurisdiction ofmeasurement and reporting, both critical aspects inperformance measurement. Performance will needto be measured at a frequency higher than or atleast equal to the frequency at which it will need to

be reported. Frequency should be determined atsuch an interval at which the variables driving theperformance parameter will undergo visible change,and thereby reflect change in performance overdifferent time periods.

Also, to the extent practical, performance should bemeasured at the smallest geographic jurisdiction aspossible. Typically, performance measurements atthe electoral ward level will be of significant value todecision-makers, especially elected representatives.Administrative jurisdictions for service deliverydepartments should ideally be co-terminus with wardboundaries. Service delivery performance at wardlevels, when laid out spatially on the city map, mayalso offer interesting insights. Also from a citizen’sperspective, ‘ward boundaries’ are the sub-ULB leveljurisdictions that they can possibly relate to. However,on the other hand, in case of network utilities such aswater supply and sewage, all network managementdata are ideally reported by the Zone/DistrictMetering Area (DMA), which typically representsmajor branches in the network.

It will therefore be relevant to examine ‘networkmanagement’-related performance indicators byZone/sub-jurisdictions of the network (for example,continuity of water supply), while service delivery asexperienced by the citizen is measured by civic wardsas the smallest jurisdiction (for example, coverage ofwater supply connections).

For purposes of internal management of theULB/utility, performance should be reported at thelowest level of jurisdiction and at maximumfrequency possible. However, frequency mayreduce and city-wide level performance may bereported to the higher levels of government andother external stakeholders.



1.3 ROLES OFDIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

For the service level performance parameters to beaccepted as a standard, all stakeholders willneed to play their parts. The roles of differentstakeholders and the next steps they will need topursue are:

a Central Government: MoUD, Government ofIndia, will take the lead in disseminating theseservice level performance parameters andbuilding wider acceptance. SLBs will also beinstitutionalised through the Jawaharlal NehruNational Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)and other programmes initiated by MoUD:

� SLBs will be an integral part of CityDevelopment Planning processes, both forassessment of the current situation, and forsetting targets under their plans;

� Wherever appropriate, SLBs will bedovetailed with the commitment on reforms,and the subsequent process of appraisalof reforms;

� The relevant SLBs should be part of DetailedProject Reports for concerned sectors,indicating both the current situation andchanges the project will bring about.Subsequent processes of implementationmonitoring of the project will also evaluatethese SLBs; and

� Under the JNNURM, support may beextended to enable ULBs and other civicagencies to establish systems in theirrespective institutions for periodicmeasurement, reporting and analysisof SLBs.

a State Governments and their Agencies:State governments and their nodal agencies inthe urban sector have a critical role indriving the performance of ULBs and city level

civic agencies. State governments will need toperiodically evaluate the SLBs as an inputfor its decisions related to policy, resourceallocations, providing incentives andpenalties, channelising technical andmanpower support, and regulatoryconsiderations, among others. TheDirectorate of Local Bodies/Department ofMunicipal Administration will need to play akey role in this process through constantinter-city comparisons. These departmentsshould leverage the power of informationtechnology to build and operate systems thatperiodically capture and report on SLBs.Web-based technologies should be leveragedto manage information flow. For other nodalState level agencies, the SLBs will providespecific inputs for their programmes andinterface with the ULBs and other civicagencies. SLBs will also be an important inputto the State Finance Commissions in thecourse of their work.

a Urban Local Bodies: ULBs are the mostimportant stakeholders for the institutionali-sation of Service Level Benchmarking.

� As service delivery institutions, ULBs willfind it useful to institutionalise systems forperformance management using SLBs.Performance data at the sub-ULB level(Zone or ward level) are particularlyuseful for the ULB for making appropriatedecisions and monitoring performance ofthe various field units. Benchmarkingwith other cities within the State, orwith similar cities, facilitates a healthycompetitive environment for continuousimprovement; and

� As the principal elected institution forself-governance in the city, ULBs will needto examine performance of other

14

parastatal civic agencies, even if the ULBs arenot directly responsible for service delivery inthose areas.

Performance management data using SLBs shouldbe included in the set of information disseminatedunder mandatory public disclosure, as required bythe reforms mandate under JNNURM.

The key next steps for ULBs are to generateperformance reports on SLBs periodically beginningfinancial year (FY) 2008-09. Data can be capturedeither regularly through systems on the ground (forexample, weighbridges at the composting plant orlandfill site, water meters capturing flow atdesignated points, demand collection registers forwater charges, etc.), or through specific surveyscarried out at defined intervals. In parallel, the ULBswill also need to institutionalise systems for the entirecycle of performance management, as depicted inFigure 1. This would imply:

� Systems for capturing data: Design andimplement data collection systems for data tobe captured at the most disaggregated level.Such data will typically be from field level staffsuch as sanitary supervisors, water pumpoperators, accounts clerks, etc. Simple data

formats should be designed and providedto them to capture the data and report itupwards within the organisation forcollation and determination of the servicelevel performance;

� Systems for collation and analysis ofperformance indicators: Specific personsshould be designated with the mandate tocollate the data received from the field andgenerate the performance reports.Working directly under supervision andguidance from officers at the head ofdepartment level, young professionals withgood analytical skills and moderate levelsof technical skills should be able to executethese tasks;

� Systems for assessment and evaluationof performance: In most cases, multipleindicators need to be examined to obtain aholistic picture of service levels in aparticular sector. Performance indicatorsreported by the department level should beclosely examined at the management levelof the ULB. Such reviews by the Mayor/Municipal Commissioner should take placeat a defined frequency, say monthly;



� Systems for decision-making: All ULBs dohave systems for decision-making; however,many decisions end up being considered inthe absence of quality data. To address suchgaps, systems such as periodically tablingthe performance reports in the Council/tothe Standing Committees should beinstituted. Typically, reporting ward levelperformance parameters, whereverapplicable, will be useful;

� Systems for operational decisions andplans: Decisions and plans will need to beperiodically reviewed in light of theperformance achieved and follow-ondecisions taken up. Additional capital orrevenue expenditure may be needed,contracting decisions made, and remedialaction taken with respect to deployment ofstaff, etc. A process of monthly review andfollow-up decisions will need to beinstituted; and

� Systems to take corrective action forperformance improvement: To enable theoperational staff implement corrective actionon the ground, they will need to beadequately empowered to implement thedecisions taken without lengthy approvalprocesses. For networked infrastructureservices, as in most urban services,significant efficiency improvements can bebrought about through operationalimprovements without significantcapital investment.

A system of incentives and penalties must beinstituted to attain targeted performancelevels. This is critical for the field functiona-ries to respond in making quick operationalimprovements. Similarly, the system ofpenalties for errant staff that has lead topoor performance should be institutionalised.

a Other Parastatal Agencies: The significanceof Service Level Benchmarking and the next

steps parastatal agencies need to undertake arevery similar to that for ULBs. Parastatal agenciestoo need to put systems in place for performancemanagement as mentioned above. The need forperiodic reporting of SLBs to ULBs concerned andits public disclosure is further highlighted in thiscase, thereby bringing in higher intensity ofaccountability of parastatal agencies to electedbodies and the public at large.

a Bi-lateral/Multi-lateral Aid Agencies andOther Stakeholders: Various urban governanceand infrastructure improvement programmesinitiated by bi-lateral and multi-lateral aidagencies can dovetail with and further strengthenthis initiative, mainly in two ways:

� Enabling State governments and cities indesign and implementation of performancemanagement systems, with a focus on theSLBs defined; and

� Extensively using the SLBs defined in thedesign, implementation and monitoring of theurban programmes supported by them.Benchmarking service levels and achievingtargets for each of these SLBs can be built intothe design of these programmes.

Organisations such as City Managers’ Associations,public administration training institutions, the Officeof the Comptroller and Auditor General, otherexternal and internal audit agencies, financialinstitutions and a whole range of externalstakeholders should examine these SLBs in thecourse of their interactions with the ULBs.

a Citizens and Civil Society: While the SLBs havenot been defined from the citizen’s perspective assuch, the parameters considered providereasonable indication of performance ofthe ULB/civic agency. Citizens should engagewith ULBs through Area Sabhas, ResidentWelfare Associations (RWAs) and other such civilsociety organisations, in examining theSLBs and suggesting remedial actions.

16

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES INIMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USINGSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

It is recognised that this initiative to implementperformance management systems using SLBs hasa number of limitations. Performance managementin ULBs is being catalysed by the CentralGovernment; however, it is acceptance andcapacity at the State and city levels that will sustainthis initiative. While this Handbook has attemptedto address issues of definition and methodology forService Level Benchmarking, it is anticipated that anumber of complexities will arise in the course ofactual implementation. Field level experience inimplementing service delivery performancemanagement systems may also throw up the needfor monitoring additional parameters. Thisexperience should then provide feedback forimproving the SLBs and preparing the secondversion of this Handbook.

Challenges involved in implementing performancemanagement systems using SLBs will be many. Theywill include:

a Systems for capturing key data elementsidentified for Service Level Benchmarking are notpresent in many cases at the field level. Ideallydata are always captured at the lowest level.Interpreting and understanding performance isalways easier at an aggregate level; this is notpossible at the disaggregated level, if data havenot been captured at that level. Also the data atcity/ULB level can be credible and reasonablyaccurate, only if they have been captured atthe lower levels, such as the ward level. Forexample, if ward level data are captured on

hours of water supply, they can be aggregated ata ULB level. However, if the number of hours isonly assessed and reported at the city level,ward-wise variances cannot be examined;

a To measure input parameters for a performanceindicator, there may be a tendency to measurethrough ad hoc systems, which can be a one-offexercise. However, to generate data from thefield level on a regular basis to sustain periodicperformance measurement, sustainable systemsneed to be put in place;

a In some cases, there may be resistance of fieldstaff or other stakeholders to collect and reportcorrect information, as vested interests may beinvolved. Such vested interests may also wantto prevent transparent disclosure of theperformance measured. Such hurdles will needto be overcome;

a As mentioned earlier, definition andmeasurement methodology issues will continueto exist, though they will be refined withexperience. Also, some other indicators mayseem important or more SLBs may seem to benecessary for interpreting performance; and

a Performance management will be sustainableonly if disclosure, reporting, monitoring andperformance management feedback, incentivesand disincentives are also brought into the cycle.Else the system of measurement and disclosureof SLBs may not sustain itself.



1.5 STANDARDISATION OFSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

Each indicator has been detailed out in astandardised template in the following pages topresent the definition and computationmethodology of the selected SLBs (performanceindicators). For each selected indicator, thefollowing details have been provided:

a Title, units and definition: The specific name,the unit of measurement in which theperformance is to be measured, and definitionfor the indicator is provided;

a Data requirements: The specific elements ofdata that need to be captured are identified,along with the corresponding unit ofmeasurement. Each data element is described,and point and frequency of data capture arementioned. The specific formulae that should beused to arrive at the performance indicatorare mentioned;

a Rationale for the indicator: For eachperformance indicator, the overall significanceand rationale for assessing and monitoring theperformance indicator have been provided.The benchmark value has been specified inmost cases;

a Reliability of measurement: The performancemeasurement is only as reliable for meaningfulmanagement decisions as the systems thatgenerate the data to compute the performance.Typically, four levels of reliability of data systemshave been specified: ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D,’ with ‘A’being of highest reliability and ‘D’ being lowest.

Reliability of measurement highlights a hithertoignored aspect in performance management ofurban services—the need to design, implementand institutionalise robust systems and processesthat will provide data of high reliability, on arepeat basis, and in a consistent manner. ULBs/urban utilities are advised to institute systems

corresponding to the level ‘A’ specified. Such atransition will not happen in a short time period.Thus, while performance levels are improvedover time, so should the data systems throughwhich data are captured. The goal, therefore, isto reach the benchmark performance level of ‘A’level reliability of measurement;

a Frequency of measurement: Frequency ofmeasurement of the performance indicatorrefers to the frequency at which the performancelevel will be assessed and not the frequency atwhich the data elements will be measured. Foreach indicator, the minimum frequency at whichthe performance should be measured ismentioned. It can then be reported at the samefrequency or a lower frequency. The frequencyat which performance is measured iscritical since:

� There should ideally be visible change orpotential for changing the performance levelbetween two consecutive time periods. (Forexample, it may not be possible to changethe availability of treatment plant capacity ina few months; therefore it should bemeasured and reported on an annual basis.However, hours of water supply may varywith seasons and can be improved duringthe year, therefore it should be reported at aquarterly and an annual frequency.);

� If the time period is set too long, theperformance measured cannot effectivelyfeed back into making operationalimprovements;

� If the time period is set too short, significanttime will be lost in only measuring andreporting performance; and

� Performance cannot be reported at afrequency higher than at which it hasbeen measured.

18

Performance should be reported more frequentlywithin the organisation, and ata lower frequency to higher levels of government,for example, performance reports should be tabledto the Standing Committees and MunicipalCouncils at monthly or quarterly frequencies.However, they may be reported at annualfrequency to State and Central governments; and

a Jurisdiction of measurement: This refers tothe geographic jurisdiction for whichperformance should be measured, and not thepoint of data collection. Typically, measuringurban service delivery performance at a sub-citylevel makes more sense for city levelstakeholders, than only city level performanceindicators. For instance, for an urban citizen ormunicipal councillor, it would be useful to knowthe performance of a particular service in thatward, especially in relation to other wards.Also measuring performance only at the citylevel will disguise huge differences in servicelevels that exist between different localities inone city, a phenomenon common in mostIndian cities.

Similarly, for stakeholders at the State andCentral level, it is useful to have city levelperformance indicators, as they would beuseful to compare and contrast cities. Suchinformation will then be useful for theformulation of State level and nationalstrategies and policy responses.

Measuring performance at a lower leveljurisdiction enables aggregation of the data toindicate performance at a larger jurisdiction.Thus, if ward level performance is known forall wards, ULB level performance can alsobe reported.

Please note that, with respect to geographicjurisdictions for the performance indicators,the terms ‘ULB’ and ‘city’ have been usedinter-changeably. This has been done since, inlarger cities/urban agglomerations, there aremultiple ULBs within the city while in smallercities, the ULBs typically cover the entire urbanboundaries. In many cities, certain servicessuch as water supply and waste watermanagement may be provided and/ormanaged by a parastatal utility for a largerurban jurisdiction, rather than the limits of theULB/s. In such cases, the data andperformance indicators may pertain to thejurisdictions of the parastatal utility. Therefore,the unit of ULB/city should be interpreted asappropriate to the given context.

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK

Section II of the Handbook provides detailsregarding each selected SLB. The list of indicatorshas been chosen after taking into accountexperiences in pilot initiatives in implementingService Level Benchmarking across ULBs/utilities.The quality of available data, effort requiredin data collection and the significance of theindicator has been considered in arriving at thisset of indicators.

Section III of the Handbook provides guidance onhow Service Level Benchmarking can beoperationalised. Samples of performance reportsof SLBs that ULBs/civic agencies can use to setand track their performance improvementare provided.



SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKS

20

Lists of SLBs have been chosen so as to reflect themultiple facets of service delivery performance. SLBsfor which detailed data sheets are provided are:

a 2.1 Water Supply Services: As water is abasic need, emphasis has been laid onperformance related to reach and access toquality service, and prevalence and effectivenessof the systems to manage the water supplynetworks. As financial sustainability is critical forcontinued effectiveness in service delivery,performance is measured on this aspect too.Indicators selected are:

2.1.1 Coverage of water supply connections

2.1.2 Per capita supply of water

2.1.3 Extent of metering of water connections

2.1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW)

2.1.5 Continuity of water supply

2.1.6 Quality of water supplied

2.1.7 Efficiency in redressal ofcustomer complaints

2.1.8 Cost recovery in water supply services

2.1.9 Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges

a 2.2 Sewage Management (Sewerage andSanitation): For sewage management,performance related to reach and access of theservice, effectiveness of the network andenvironmental sustainability have beenemphasised, apart from financial sustainabilityof operations. Indicators selected are:

2.2.1 Coverage of toilets

2.2.2 Coverage of sewage network services

2.2.3 Collection efficiency of sewage network

2.2.4 Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity

2.2.5 Quality of sewage treatment

2.2.6 Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage


2.2.8 Extent of cost recovery insewage management

2.2.9 Efficiency in collection ofsewage charges

a 2.3 Solid Waste Management: Performancerelated to reach and access, effectiveness of

network operations and environmental

sustainability have been considered, apart from

financial sustainability of operations. Indicators

selected are:

2.3.1 Household level coverage of solid wastemanagement services

2.3.2 Efficiency of collection of municipalsolid waste

2.3.3 Extent of segregation of municipalsolid waste

2.3.4 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered

2.3.5 Extent of scientific disposal of municipalsolid waste

SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKS2.0

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS



2.3.7 Extent of cost recovery in SWM services

2.3.8 Efficiency in collection ofSWM charges

a 2.4 Storm Water Drainage: Extent of thenetwork and effectiveness of the network are

emphasised to assess storm water drainagesystem performance. As this service doesnot yield any direct revenues, financialsustainability is not considered. Indicatorsselected are:

2.4.1 Coverage of storm waterdrainage network

2.4.2 Incidence of water logging/flooding

22

WATER SUPPLYSERVICES2.1

2.1.1 COVERAGE OFWATER SUPPLY CONNECTIONS

Performance Indicator

Unit

%

Number

Number

%

Definition

Total number of households in the service areathat are connected to the water supply networkwith direct service connections, as a percentage ofthe total number of households in that servicearea. Service area implies a specific jurisdiction inwhich service is required to be provided.

The total number of households (not properties) inthe service area should be calculated. The servicearea refers to either the ward or ULB limits.Cadastre maps supplemented through actualground level surveys (carried out once in four tofive years) should provide these data. Exclusivesurveys need not be carried out, and data can becollected during other surveys carried out forproperty tax, or other such purposes.

This will include households which receivemunicipal water supply at one common point,from where it is stored and distributed to allhouseholds (for example, as in apartmentcomplexes). Households supplied water throughpublic standposts or tankers should be excluded.Households completely dependent on other watersources such as borewells, open wells, etc., shouldnot be included.

Coverage = [(b/a)*100]

Data Requirements

Indicator

Household level coverage of directwater supply connections

a. Total number of households in theservice area

b. Total number of households withdirect water supply connection

Household coverage for watersupply connections

Data required for calculating Unit Remarksthe indicator



Minimum frequency of measurement Smallest geographical jurisdiction forof performance indicator measurement of performance

Measurement Quarterly Measurement Zone/DMA level

Rationale for the Indicator

The minimum level acceptable standard for water supply service should be a household level watersupply connection, that is, a direct piped connection for water supply within the household. Waterprovision to households (urban poor or otherwise), at common public standposts cannot beconsidered as an acceptable/long-term permanent service provision standard. The social costs of nothaving access to a piped water connection at the household level are significant. Innovative servicedelivery options may be adopted for delivery of piped water connections to properties withinappropriate tenure rights (as in many urban slums). It is therefore important to measure thisperformance indicator, the benchmark value for which should be 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement

Reliability scale Description of method

Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation of households covered on the basis of geographical areaof the city covered with the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicatorfor water supply coverage.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation of households covered on the basis of road length in thecity covered by the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator forwater supply coverage.

Intermediate level (B) Estimation of households covered computed as the total number ofconnections (for which data are maintained) as a percentage of theestimated number of households on the basis of population (totalpopulation divided by average household size).

Highest/preferred level Calculation based on the actual number of households with directof reliability (A) service connections (for which data are maintained); and the total

number of households as revealed in ground level surveys.Data are periodically updated on the basis of building unitsapproved, and new household level water connections provided.

24

2.1.2 PER CAPITA SUPPLY OF WATER


Unit

litres percapita perday (lpcd)

litres permonth

Number

Number

litres percapita perday (lpcd)

lpcd

Data Requirements

Indicator

Per capita quantum ofwater supplied

a. Water supplied to thedistribution system

b. Population served

c. Number of days in the month

d. Additional information on areaswhere water is supplied at a rateless than 70 lpcd

Water supplied


Definition

Total water supplied to consumers expressed bypopulation served per day.

Daily quantities should be measured throughmetering, and records maintained. The total supplyfor the month should be based on an aggregate ofdaily quantum. Only treated water input into thedistribution system should be measured. If water isdistributed from multiple points, the aggregate ofthat quantity should be considered. The quantumshould exclude bulk water transmission anddistribution losses, as measured through water audittests. This quantum should include water purchaseddirectly from any other sources and put into thedistribution system, if any. Water may have beenpurchased from neighbouring ULBs, CantonmentBoards, etc. Water supplied in bulk to large waterintensive industries/industrial estates shouldbe excluded.

The number of people in the service area served bythe utility. While typically the number of residents areconsidered, if the city has a significant floatingpopulation of tourists who temporarily reside in thecity, such a population should be included. Touristpopulation estimates can be reasonably computedon the basis of bed capacity of hotels, andoccupancy rates.

The number of days in the specific month.

The number of people in these service areas servedby the utility. The quantity of water supplied to theseareas measured through bulk meters or by scientificcalculation using flow velocity and head.

Per capita water supplied = [(a/c) /b]




This frequently used performance indicator provides an overall indication of the adequacy of thewater supply to meet the needs of the citizens in the city. Per capita water supplied, expressed in lpcd,indicates the adequacy of the municipal water supply system in being able to source, treat water topotable standards and supply it into the distribution system. Therefore, this indicator should beperiodically measured and monitored. Monitoring this on a monthly basis will reveal seasonalvariations. The benchmark value for this indicator is 135 lpcd. However, the additional information inrespect of the areas where water is supplied at the rate of 70 lpcd should also be indicated. The keylimitation of this indicator is that it provides information on a city-wide basis, and does not revealintra-city variations.



Lowest level of reliability (D) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumedpump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours ofoperation. The population served is calculated on the basis of pastcensus figures, extrapolated to current levels. Reliable estimates ofthe floating population are not available.

Intermediate level (C) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis ofmeasurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at allbulk production points. Reliable estimates of transmission losses andindustrial water consumption are available. The population served iscalculated on the basis of past census figures, extrapolated to currentlevels. Reliable estimates of the floating population are not available.

Intermediate level (B) Not applicable.

Highest/preferred level of The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis ofreliability (A) measurement by bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant

and/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of losses and bulkindustrial consumption are periodically monitored. The populationserved is known with reasonable accuracy. Any expansion ofmunicipal limits and other significant factors are measured andfactored into the current population computation. The floatingpopulation is estimated with reasonable accuracy.



26

2.1.3 EXTENT OF METERING OFWATER CONNECTIONS


Unit

%

Number

Number

Number

Number

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of metering ofwater connections

a. Total number of directservice connections

b. Total number ofpublic standposts

c. Number of metered directservice connections

d. Number of meteredpublic standposts

Extent of metering ofwater connections


Definition

The total number of functional metered waterconnections expressed as a percentage of the totalnumber of water supply connections. Publicstandpost connections should also be included.

This will include households and establishmentswhich receive municipal water supply at onecommon point, from where it may be stored anddistributed for all households (for example, as inapartment complexes). Households completelydependent on other water sources such as borewells, open wells, etc., should not be included.

The total number of public standpost connections,which are currently in use, should be considered.

Of the total number of direct service connections(to all categories of consumers), the number ofconnections which have functional meters, andmetered quantities is the basis for billing ofwater charges.

Typically, public standposts are not metered.However, if some are metered, they shouldbe included.

Extent of metered connections =[(c + d)/ (a + b)]*100




While water is a basic need, the supply of potable water to citizens at their doorstep involvessignificant costs in building, operating and maintaining a system to do so. In a water supply system,the quantum of service provided to citizens is directly measurable, and therefore it is necessary thatall the water supplied to all categories of consumers should be metered. Metering will also induceefficiency in use of water, reveal physical and administrative leakages in the system, and enablehigh-end consumers to be charged for consuming more. Therefore, to introduce a volumetric-basedtariff structure for water charges, metering all connections is essential. It is, therefore, important tomonitor this indicator, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) A few meters have been installed. All installed meters are assumed tobe functional and used as the basis for billing water charges.

Intermediate level (C) Meters are installed for only certain categories of consumers. It isassumed all consumers of these categories have meters installedwhich are functional and used as the basis for billing. Recordsdo not reveal the exact number of connections which are metered.Water is charged on the basis of average readings for the consumercategory or on the basis of past trends in most cases.

Intermediate level (B) Databases/records reveal the list of consumers that have metersinstalled in their water connections. However, there are no clear dataon functioning of meters, and no linkage with the billing system thatmay or may not use metered quantity as the basis for billing.

Highest/preferred Billing records and databases clearly identify consumers with meterslevel of reliability (A) (against specific meter serial number). Billing processes reveal regular

reading of meters and meter readings are the basis for chargingconsumers. Records on standposts are available. Databases of waterconnections and meters are complete, and spatially referenced with ageographic information system (GIS) database. There is a mechanismin place to repair meters if found faulty. Processes for installation ofnew water connections, installation of meters and generation of waterbills based on this are interlinked, and the data systems enable suchcontinuity of data flow regarding these.



28

2.1.4 EXTENT OFNON-REVENUE WATER (NRW)


Unit

%

millionlitres perday (or)month


%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of NRW

a. Total water produced and putinto the transmission anddistribution system

b. Total water sold

NRW


Definition

This indicator highlights the extent of water producedwhich does not earn the utility any revenue. This iscomputed as the difference between the total waterproduced (ex-treatment plant) and the total watersold expressed as a percentage of the total waterproduced. NRW comprises: a) Consumptionwhich is authorised but not billed, such as publicstandposts; b) Apparent losses such as illegal waterconnections, water theft and metering inaccuracies;and c) Real losses which are leakages in thetransmission and distribution networks.

Daily quantities should be measured throughmetering, and records on the transmission anddistribution system should be maintained. The totalsupply for the month should be based on theaggregate of the daily quantum. Only treated waterinput into the distribution system should bemeasured. If water is distributed from multiplepoints, the aggregate of that quantity should beconsidered. This quantum should include waterpurchased directly from any other sources and putinto the distribution system, if any. Water may havebeen purchased from neighbouring ULBs,Cantonment Boards, etc.

The actual volume of water supplied to customerswho are billed for the water provided. Ideally, thisshould be the aggregate volume of water consumedas per which consumers have been billed. However,in the absence of a complete and functionallyeffective metering regimen, alternate methods ofmeasurement need to be evolved, with lower butacceptable levels of reliability.

NRW = [((a - b)/a)*100]




Measurement Quarterly Measurement ULB level


The reduction in NRW to acceptable levels is vital for the financial sustainability of the water utility.NRW can be reduced through appropriate technical and managerial actions, and thereforemonitoring NRW can trigger such corrective measures. The reduction of real losses can be used tomeet currently unsatisfied demand or to defer future capital expenditures to provide additional supplycapacity. The reduction of NRW is desirable not just from a financial standpoint, but also from theeconomic and environmental benefits’ point of view. The benchmark value for NRW may beconsidered at 20 percent, the levels achieved by most well-performing utilities in developed countries.NRW is also influenced by factors outside the control of the water utility such as the topography of thecity, age of the network, length of the network per connection and water use per capita.



Lowest level of reliability (D) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumedpump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours ofoperation. A few meters have been installed in the distribution systemand at the consumer end. The quantity of water sold to the categoryof consumers to whom bills are raised is estimated on the basis ofassumed average consumption in that category and the number ofconsumers in that category.

Intermediate level (C) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis ofmeasurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at allbulk production points. Meters are installed for a select category ofconsumers, such as commercial and bulk consumers. For othercategories of consumers, such as domestic consumers, the number ofsuch consumers and the average consumption per consumer areconsidered, to arrive at the quantum of water sold.

Intermediate level (B) The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis ofmeasurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plantand/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of water sold isbased on the metered quantity for bulk and commercial consumers.For households, ferrule size (the size of the distribution pipe outlet atthe consumer end) of each consumer connection as well as the hoursof supply are known, to compute the quantum of water sold.

Highest/preferred level of The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis ofreliability (A) measurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant

and/or at all bulk production points. Metering is undertaken at allkey distribution nodes (entry to DMAs) and at the consumer’s end forall categories of consumers. Billing records and databases clearlyreveal regular reading of meters and, therefore, the total quantum ofwater billed to consumers in the given time period (month/bi-monthly).

30

2.1.5 CONTINUITY OFWATER SUPPLY


Unit

Hoursper day

Hours

Data Requirements

Definition

Continuity of supply is measured as the average number ofhours of pressurised water supply per day. Water pressureshould be equal to or more than a head of 7 metre (m) at theferrule point/meter point for the connection (7 m headcorresponds to the ability to supply to a single-storey building).

The number of hours of supply in each operational zone (orDMA) should be measured continuously for a period of sevendays. The average of the seven days should be considered forthat month. Measurement should exclude hours of supplywhere the pressure is less than the minimum standards forpiped water supply. The zone-wise figures should be averagedout to get city-wise data.

Indicator

Continuity of water supply

Average hours of pressurisedsupply per day





Almost no Indian city has a continuous (24x7) water supply system, the norm for all cities in thedeveloped world. From a citizen’s perspective, it is desirable to have round-the-clock water supplydaily, as it eliminates the need to provide and manage household/establishment level storage, andother resultant inconveniences. Water utilities in most Indian cities provide intermittent and limitednumber of hours of supply, as a means to manage inadequate supply. A number of studies havedemonstrated the negative fallouts of designing and operating a system for intermittent water supply.A number of cities are undertaking substantial investments to improve this service level. It is,therefore, critical to monitor this indicator on a city-wide basis and move towards the benchmarkvalue of 24 hours.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation of the number of hours based on feedback from field levelengineers. Zone-wise data are not available.

Intermediate level (C) Not applicable.

Intermediate level (B) The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of thevalve operating points. Pressure availability at the consumers’ end isassumed to be adequate and meeting the stated norms.

Highest/preferred level of The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of thereliability (A) valve operating points. Pressure adequacy and the number

of hours of supply at the consumers’ end are assessed on thebasis of a statistically valid sample survey, across all zones in the city.


Measurement Monthly Measurement Zone/DMA level

32

2.1.6 QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIED


Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Quality of water supplied

a. Total number of water supply-related complaints receivedper month

b. Number of samples that meetthe specified potable waterstandards in the month

Quality of water supply

Data required for calculating Unit Remarks the indicator

Definition

The percentage of water samples that meet orexceed the specified potable water standards, asdefined by the Central Public Health andEnvironmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO).The sampling regimen should meet standards andnorms laid down.

The actual number of water samples that are takenfor testing in the month. Samples should be drawnat both points—outlet of the treatment plant and atthe consumer end. The sampling regimen shouldmeet laid down standards and norms.

Of the total number of samples drawn in the month,the number of samples that have met or exceededthe specified potable water standards. Allparameters of the quality standards should be met.Even if one standard is not met, the sample cannotbe assumed to have met the standards.

Quality of water supply = [(b/a)*100]




The quality of water supplied is as important a performance indicator as other service deliveryindicators. Poor water quality can pose serious public health hazards. Water-borne diseases are quitecommon in Indian cities, particularly among the urban poor. Although, in most cases, the source ofwater that causes such diseases/epidemics is not the municipal piped water supply, it is veryimportant to monitor the supply. Therefore, this performance indicator must be regularly monitored,the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Sampling is done only at treatment plant outlets. There is absence ofa sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, and onlyvery basic tests are carried out.

Intermediate level (C) Sampling is done at production and intermediate points along thedistribution network, but only for residual chlorine. There is absenceof a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, andtests are intermittently carried out through a third party.

Intermediate level (B) Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet andconsumption points. Consumption points are spatially spread acrossthe city. The sampling regimen is well documented andpracticed. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriologicaltests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy andregular access to accredited testing centres.

Highest/preferred level Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet andof reliability (A) consumption points. The sampling regimen is well documented and

practiced. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriologicaltests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy andregular access to accredited testing centres. A periodic, independentaudit of water quality is carried out.


Measurement Monthly Measurement ULB level

34

2.1.7 EFFICIENCY IN REDRESSAL OFCUSTOMER COMPLAINTS


Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in redressal of customercomplaints

a. Total number of water supply-related complaints receivedper month

b. Total number of complaintsredressed within the month

Efficiency in redressal ofcomplaints


Definition

The total number of water supply-related complaintsredressed within 24 hours of receipt of complaint, asa percentage of the total number of water supply-related complaints received in the given time period.

The total number of all supply-related complaintsfrom consumers received during the month. Systemsfor receiving and logging in complaints should beeffective and easily accessible to the citizens. Pointsof customer contact will include common phonenumbers, written complaints at ward offices,collection centres, drop boxes, online complaints onthe website, etc.

The total number of water supply-related complaintsthat are satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours orthe next working day, within that particular month.Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should beendorsed by the person making the complaint inwriting, as a part of any format/proforma thatis used to track complaints.

Efficiency in redressal of complaints =[(b/a)*100]






It is important that, in essential services such as water supply, the ULB/water utility has effectivesystems to capture customer complaints/grievances, escalate them internally for remedial action andresolve them. While many ULBs/utilities have put in place systems to capture complaints, much morework needs to be done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactory resolution of thosecomplaints on time. As water supply is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is24 hours or the next working day. It is, therefore, important to monitor this indicator. The benchmarkvalue for this indicator will depend on a number of factors such as the size of the city, age of thenetwork, etc. The benchmark value for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Complaints data are not maintained either at the ward or city level.

Intermediate level (C) There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers canregister their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writingor e-mail. All complaints received are assumed to be resolved quickly.

Intermediate level (B) There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers canregister their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writingor e-mail. However, systems do not exist for aggregating, sorting andtracking the complaints. Data available for some months have beenused as a trend to report the figures for some other months.

Highest/preferred level There are multiple mechanisms by which consumers can register theirof reliability (A) complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail.

Complaints are segregated into different categories. They are collatedthrough the computer network or other systems, and tracked on adaily basis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained.Consumers endorse complaints being addressed on themunicipal proforma.

36

2.1.8 COST RECOVERY INWATER SUPPLY SERVICES


Unit

%

Rs croreper quarter

Rs croreper quarter

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Cost recovery in watersupply services

a. Total annual operating expenses

b. Total annual operating revenues

Cost recovery in watersupply services


Definition

The total operating revenues expressed as apercentage of the total operating expenses incurredin the corresponding time period. Only income andexpenditure of the revenue account must beconsidered, and income and expenditure from thecapital account should be excluded.

Should include all operating expenses (for the year)such as electricity, chemicals, staff, outsourcedoperations/staff related to water supply, bulk waterpurchase costs and other operations andmaintenance (O&M) expenses. Should excludeinterest payments, principal repayments and othercapital expenses.

Should include all water supply-related revenues(billed) during the corresponding time period,including taxes/cess/surcharges, user charges,connection charges, sale of bulk water, etc. Thisshould exclude capital income such as grants,loans, etc.

Cost recovery = [(b/a)*100]






Financial sustainability is critical for all basic urban services. In services such as water supply, benefitsreceived by the consumers are more direct and can be quantified. Therefore, through a combinationof user charges, fees and taxes, all operating costs may be recovered. Therefore, this indicator iscritical for measuring overall cost recovery, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent. Costrecovery objectives provide a basis for tariff fixation, enable setting targets for revenue mobilisationand cost control in the delivery of water supply services.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of budget heads related to water supplyservices and sanitation from the rest of the functions of the agency.A cash-based accounting system is practiced. There are noclear systems for reporting unpaid expenditure, or revenues that aredue. Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have a time lagand are not regular.


Intermediate level (B) Budget heads related to water and sanitation are segregated. Keycosts related to water and sanitation are identifiable, althoughcomplete segregation is not practiced (for example, electricitycosts for water supply services are not segregated from overallelectricity costs of the ULB). Key income and expenditure arerecognised based on accrual principles. Disclosures are completeand are timely.

Highest/preferred level In case of multi-function agencies such as municipal corporations, theof reliability (A) budget heads related to water and sanitation are clearly separated.

Cost allocation standards for common costs are in place. An accrual-based double entry accounting system is practiced. Accountingstandards are comparable to commercial accounting standards withclear guidelines for recognition of income and expenditure.Accounting and budgeting manuals are in place and are adhered to.Financial statements have full disclosure and are audited regularlyand on time.



38

2.1.9 EFFICIENCY IN COLLECTION OFWATER SUPPLY-RELATED CHARGES


Unit

%

Rs croreper annum

Rs croreper annum

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in collection of water-related charges

a. Current revenues collected inthe given year

b. Total operating revenues billedduring the given year

Collection efficiency


Definition

Efficiency in collection is defined as current yearrevenues collected, expressed as a percentage of thetotal operating revenues, for the correspondingtime period

Revenues collected for bills raised during the year.This should exclude collection of arrears as inclusionof arrears will skew the performance reflected.Collection efficiency is in fact an indicator of howmany arrears are being built up, and therefore onlycurrent revenues should be considered.

The total quantum of revenues related to watersupply services that is billed during the year. Thisshould include revenues from all sources related towater such as taxes, charges, cess, surcharges, saleof bulk water, etc.

Collection efficiency = [(a/b)*100]




Measurement Annually Measurement Zone/DMA level


For a water utility, it is not just enough to have an appropriate tariff structure that enables costrecovery objectives but also efficient collection of revenues that are due to the utility. It is alsoimportant that the revenues are collected in the same financial year, without allowing for dues to getaccumulated as arrears. It is, therefore, critical to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value forcollection efficiency may be considered at 90 percent, since it is possible that about 10 percent of thedues may be delayed to the next year.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of arrears versus current year revenuecollection. A cash basis of accounting is followed. The accountingcode structure does not enable clear segregation of water revenues.


Intermediate level (B) There is clear segregation of current year revenues collection versusarrears collection. However, revenue collection is not matched againstthe specific bill issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting arefollowed, and therefore deposits and advances are not included inincome and expenditure, respectively.

Highest/preferred level of Collection records are maintained for each billing cycle. Collectionsreliability (A) are clearly identified against the specific bill which has been issued.

Overall accrual principles of accounting are followed, and thereforedeposits and advances are not included in income and expenditure,respectively. The accounting code structure also enables monitoring ofbilling and collections for each ward within the ULB.

40

SEWAGE MANAGEMENT(SEWERAGE AND SANITATION)2.2

2.2.1 COVERAGE OF TOILETS


Unit

%

Number

Number

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Coverage of toilets

a. Total number of properties withaccess to individual or communitytoilets within walking distance inthe service area

b. Total number of propertieswithout individual or communitytoilets within walking distance

Coverage of toilets


Definition

This indicator denotes the extent to which citizenshave access to a toilet (whether individual orcommunity) in a service area. The toilets wouldinclude those in the category of residential,commercial, industrial and institutional properties.The service area implies a specific jurisdiction inwhich the service is required to be provided.

The total number of toilets (as against households)should be assessed. A property may have multipletenants. A property is considered unique if it isrecorded as a unique property in the municipalrecords. Municipal records should be up-to-date,and preferably backed up by a cadastre map.

Only the total number of properties without access toindividual or community toilets should be assessed.

Coverage of toilets = [a/a+b]*100




Last mile access to toilets is key to improvement in service levels of sanitation facilities. In many Indiancities, there is inadequate access to toilet facilities. Therefore, it is important to measure thisparameter. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent. Substantial investment in this areais being taken up under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) component of JNNURM as wellas the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) scheme.



Measurement Quarterly Measurement Ward level


Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation based on the geographical area of the ULB covered withand without toilet facilities as a percentage of the total ULB area, asan indicator of service coverage.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation based on the total number of properties with toilets on thepremises or with access to a community toilet at walking distance andwithout such facilities as a percentage of the estimated number ofproperties, to arrive at the indicator of service coverage.

Intermediate level (B) None.

Highest/preferred level Calculation based on the actual number of properties and the countof reliability (A) of properties with or without toilet facilities, measured through a field

survey. These data should be periodically updated on the basis of dataregarding provision of toilet facilities and new properties beingdeveloped (from the building plan approval department). Fieldsurveys throughout the city should be carried out at least once infive years.

42

2.2.2 COVERAGE OF SEWAGENETWORK SERVICES


Unit

%

Number

Number

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Coverage of sewagenetwork services

a. Total number of properties in theservice area

b. Total number of propertieswith direct connection to thesewage network

Coverage of sewage network


Definition

This indicator denotes the extent to which theunderground sewage (or sewerage collection)network has reached out to individual propertiesacross the service area. Properties include those inthe categories of residential, commercial, industrialand institutional. The service area implies aspecific jurisdiction in which service is required tobe provided.

The total number of properties (as againsthouseholds) should be assessed. A property mayhave multiple tenants. A property is consideredunique if it is recorded as a unique property in themunicipal records. Municipal records should beup-to-date, and preferably backed up by acadastre map.

Only properties with access connection to theunderground sewage network should be included.Properties that connect their sewerage outlet to stormwater drains or open drainage systems should notbe considered. However, this may include one ormore properties with access to decentralised/standalone underground sewage networks, whichhave treatment and safe effluent disposal facilities,which has been set up and operated according tolaid down environmental standards.

Coverage of sewage network services =[b/a]*100




Last mile access to sewage networks is key to improvement in service levels of sewage management.In many Indian cities, sewage also flows through open drains/storm water drains, posing seriouspublic health hazards. Also, the coverage of sewage network services is very low across most Indiancities. With substantial investments in this area being taken up in programmes such as JNNURM, itwould be important to monitor this indicator to observe the impact being made on the ground.Therefore, it is important to measure this parameter. Its benchmark value is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation based on the geographical area of the ULB covered withthe sewage pipeline network, as a percentage of the total ULB area,as an indicator of service coverage.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation based on the road length in the city covered by the pipelinenetwork, as a percentage of the total road length, as an indicator ofservice coverage.

Intermediate level (B) Estimation based on the total number of connections as a percentageof the estimated number of properties, to arrive at the indicator ofservice coverage.

Highest/preferred level Calculation based on the actual number of properties and the countof reliability (A) of properties with a direct connection, measured through a field

survey. These data should be periodically updated on the basis of newsewage connections taken (from the sewage department), and newproperties being developed (from the building plan approvaldepartment). Field surveys throughout the city should be carried out atleast once in five years.



44

2.2.3 COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF THESEWAGE NETWORK


Unit

%




%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in collection of sewage

a. Total water supplied

b. Estimated water use fromother sources

c. Wastewater collected

Wastewater collection efficiency


Definition

This indicator is measured as the quantum ofwastewater collected as a percentage of normativesewage generation in the ULB. Wastewater generation islinked to the quantum of water supplied through pipedsystems, and other sources such as bore wells, whenthey are very extensively used.

Data should be collected daily for an entire month, soas to measure the quantities per month. While dailyvariations may be normalised, monthly variations mayexist on account of seasonal variations. Data should beaggregated from multiple points across the ULB.

Data on the total quantum of water supplied toconsumers should be based on the water supplied tothe distribution system (ex-treatment plant andincluding purchased water, if any), less physical lossesof water in the transmission and distribution systemthrough leakages. In case municipal water is suppliedthrough decentralised distribution networks or sourcingwater from deep bore wells, it should be included.

An estimate of water drawn from other sources such asprivate bore wells. Data that will drive this estimateinclude the number of properties with access to borewells or other sources of water, spatially spread acrossthe city, and the quantity of water supplied in thoseareas. Alternately, data may also be collected fromsample surveys.

The quantum of wastewater measured at the inlet oftreatment plants. The quantum of untreated sewage atoutfalls, leading into rivers, lakes or other waterbodies should not be included in the quantum ofsewage collected.

Collection efficiency of sewage networks =[c/ ((a+b)*0.8)]x100




While the performance indicator for coverage provides an idea of infrastructure available for accessto sewage networks, the effectiveness of the system in capturing the sewage may not be adequate.Therefore, the performance indicator related to collection efficiency signifies the effectiveness of thenetwork in capturing and conveying it to the treatment plants. Thus, it is not just adequate to have aneffective network that collects sewage, but also one that treats the sewage at the end of the network.The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Water production is based on ‘D’ category systems for measuringNRW. There are no meters at sewage treatment plants (STPs), intake isestimated on the basis of flow or treatment plant capacity. Noestimates are available for water consumed from other sources.

Intermediate level (C) Water production is based on ‘C’ category systems for measuringNRW. Sewage intake is estimated on the basis of flow or treatmentplant capacity. No estimates are available for water consumed fromother sources.

Intermediate level (B) Water production is based on ‘B’ category systems for measuringNRW. Periodic measurement of wastewater collection is based on flowassessment methods at the STPs. There are no estimates for waterconsumed from other sources.

Highest/preferred level Water production is based on ‘A’ category measurement systems forof reliability (A) measuring NRW. Estimates are available for water consumed from

other sources. Measurement of wastewater collection occurs at allinlets of STPs by flow assessment methods. Process control automationprovides accurate data, for both water production and distribution andfor sewage intake and treatment.



46

2.2.4 ADEQUACY OF SEWAGETREATMENT CAPACITY


Unit

%




%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Adequacy of capacity fortreatment of sewage

a. Total water consumed

b. Total number of propertieswith direct connection to thesewage network

c. Treatment plant capacity

Wastewater treatment capacity


Definition

Adequacy is expressed as secondary treatment(that is, removing oxygen demand as well as solids,normally biological) capacity available as apercentage of normative wastewater generation,for the same time period

Data on the total quantum of water supplied toconsumers should be based on the water suppliedto the distribution system (ex-treatment plant andincluding purchased water, if any), less physicallosses of water in the transmission and distributionsystem through leakages. In case municipal wateris supplied through decentralised distributionnetworks or sourcing water from deep bore wells,it should be included.

An estimate of water drawn from other sources suchas private bore wells. Data that will drive thisestimate include the number of properties withaccess to bore wells or other sources of water,spatially spread across the city, and the quantity ofwater supplied in those areas. Alternately, data mayalso be collected from sample surveys.

Total functional capacity of all wastewatertreatment plants that can meet secondarytreatment standards.

Adequacy of treatment capacity =[c/ ((a+b)*0.8)]x100




Most Indian cities have inadequate capacity for treatment of sewage that is generated in their cities.Significant investments are under way in creating such capacities through programmes such asJNNURM. This indicator will highlight the adequacy of available and operational sewage treatmentcapacity. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Water consumption is based on ‘D’ category systems for measuringNRW. There is no estimate of wastewater treatment capacity that isactually functional and in operation, nor for water consumed fromother sources.

Intermediate level (C) Water consumption is based on ‘C’ category systems for NRW. Thereis no estimate of wastewater treatment capacity that is actuallyfunctional and in operation, nor for water consumed fromother sources.

Intermediate level (B) Water consumption is based on ‘B’ category systems for NRW. Soundengineering estimates of functional wastewater treatment capacity areavailable, on the basis of reliable operational data that aremaintained. There are no estimates for water consumed fromother sources.

Highest/preferred level of Water consumption is based on ‘A’ category measurement systems forreliability (A) NRW. Reliable estimates are available for the quantity of water

consumed from non-municipal sources. STP system capacity isassessed through rigorous testing and commissioning procedures(after which there have been no modifications to the plant). In caseany modifications to the STP have been carried out, system capacity isreassessed through measuring peak throughput.


Measurement Annually Measurement ULB level

48

2.2.5 QUALITY OFSEWAGE TREATMENT


Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Quality of treatment

a. Total number of wastewatersamples tested in a month

b. Number of samples thatpass the specified secondarytreatment standards

Quality of treatment


Definition

Quality of treatment is measured as a percentage ofwastewater samples that pass the specifiedsecondary treatment standards, that is, treatedwater samples from the outlet of STPs are equal toor better than the standards laid down by theGovernment of India agencies for secondarytreatment of sewage. While the samples arecollected at the STP outlet and results should becomputed per STP, this indicator should be reportedat city/ULB level.

Sampling (quantity, periodicity, point of samplecollection, etc.) should be taken as per goodindustry practices and laid down norms byenvironmental agencies, such as pollution controlboards of respective States.

Within the total valid samples, the number ofsamples that pass the specified secondarytreatment standards, along all key parameters.

Quality of treatment capacity =[(b/a)*100]




For sustainable sewage management, it is not just enough to have the infrastructure to collect andconvey the sewage, or the installed capacity to treat it. It is important that the treated water that isdischarged back into water bodies, or used for other purposes such as irrigation, meets the laiddown environmental standards. It is therefore important to monitor this indicator. Its benchmarkvalue is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is an absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratoryequipment. Irregular tests are carried out. Not all parameters are tested.


Intermediate level (B) The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced on mostoccasions. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy andregular access to accredited testing centres. Only a few key parametersare assessed.

Highest/preferred level of The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced completely. Thereliability (A) ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access

to accredited testing centres. There is periodic independent audit ofwastewater quality. All parameters are assessed.



50

2.2.6 EXTENT OF REUSE ANDRECYCLING OF SEWAGE


Unit

%



%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of recycling or reuseof sewage

a. Wastewater received at STPs

b. Wastewater recycled or reusedafter appropriate treatment

Wastewater recycled or reused


Definition

The percentage of wastewater received at thetreatment plant that is recycled or reused afterappropriate treatment for various purposes. Thisshould only consider water that is directly conveyedfor recycling or reuse, such as use in gardens andparks, use for irrigation, etc. Water that is dischargedinto water bodies, which is subsequently used for avariety of purposes, should not be included inthis quantum.

While measurements are done at STP inlets andoutlets, the indicator should be reported at thecity/ULB level as a whole.

This should be based on the actual flowmeasurement, the quantum for which should bemeasured daily. Daily quantities should beaggregated to arrive at monthly quantum.

This should be based on the actual flowmeasurement by functional flow meters, thequantum for which should be measured daily. Dailyquantities should be aggregated to arrive at themonthly quantum.

Extent of sewage recycled or reused =[(b/a)*100]





Lowest level of reliability (D) There are no meters at STP inlets or points of supply of recycledwater. Estimates are based on observation and STP capacity.


Intermediate level (B) Not applicable.

Highest/preferred level of Based on data from flow measurement at STP inlets and outletsreliability (A) (that is, points of supply of recycled water). Data should

be measured daily, and aggregated for monthly totals.


For sustainable water management, it is desirable that sewage is recycled or reused afterappropriate treatment. Effluent water can be directly reused in a number of areas such as used inparks and gardens, supplied for irrigation purposes for farmland on the city periphery, etc. Tomaximise this reuse, it is important that this indicator is measured and monitored. Its benchmarkcould be 20 percent.



52



Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in redressal ofcustomer complaints

a. Total number of sewage-relatedcomplaints received per month


Efficiency in redressalof complaints


Definition

The total number of sewage-related complaintsredressed within 24 hours of receipt of complaints,as a percentage of the total number of sewage-related complaints received in the given time period.

The total number of all sewage-related complaintsfrom consumers received during the month.Systems for receiving and logging in complaintsshould be effective and easily accessible to thecitizens. Points of customer contact will includecommon phone numbers, written complaints atward offices, collection centres, drop boxes, onlinecomplaints on the website, etc.

The total number of sewage-related complaints thatare satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours or thenext working day, within that particular month.Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should beendorsed by the person making the complaint inwriting, as part of any format/proforma that is usedto track complaints.





It is important that in essential services such as sewage, the utility has effective systems to capturecustomer complaints/grievances, escalate them internally for remedial action and resolve them.While many ULBs/utilities have put in place systems to capture complaints, much more work needs tobe done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactorily resolving those complaints on time. Assewage treatment is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is 24 hours or the nextworking day. It is therefore important to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for this indicatorwill depend on a number of factors such as the size of the city, age of the network, etc. Thebenchmark value for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Complaints data are not maintained either at ward or city level.




Complaints are segregated into different categories, and are collatedthrough a computer network or other systems, and tracked on a dailybasis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained. Consumersendorse complaints being addressed on the municipal proforma.



54

2.2.8 EXTENT OF COST RECOVERY INSEWAGE MANAGEMENT


Unit

%

Rs crore

Rs crore

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of cost recovery insewage management



Cost recovery insewage management


Definition

The extent of cost recovery is expressed aswastewater revenues as a percentage of wastewaterexpenses, for the corresponding time period.

Should include all operating expenses (for the year)such as electricity, chemicals, staff and otherestablishment costs, outsourced operations/staffrelated to wastewater collection and treatment, andO&M expenses. Should exclude interest paymentsand principal repayments.

Should include all wastewater-related revenuesbilled for the year including taxes/cess/surcharges,user charges, connection charges, sale of sludge,sale of recycled water, etc.

Cost recovery = [(b/a)*100]






Financial sustainability is a critical factor for all basic urban services. In services such as seweragemanagement, some benefits are received directly by the consumers, and some benefits accrueindirectly through a sustainable environment and public health benefits. Therefore, through acombination of user charges, fees and taxes, all operating costs may be recovered. Therefore, theindicator is critical for measuring overall cost recovery, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of budget heads related to wastewater fromthe rest of the functions of the agency. A cash-based accountingsystem is practiced. There are no clear systems for reporting unpaidexpenditure. Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have atime lag and are not regular.


Intermediate level (B) Budget heads related to wastewater are segregated. Key costs relatedto wastewater are identifiable, although complete segregation is notpracticed. Key income and expenditure are recognised, based onaccrual principles. Disclosures are complete and on time.

Highest/preferred level In case of multi-function agencies such as municipal corporations,of reliability (A) the budget heads related to wastewater are clearly separated.

Cost allocation standards for common costs are in place. Anaccrual-based double entry accounting system is practiced.Accounting standards comparable to commercial accountingstandards with clear guidelines for recognition of income andexpenditure are followed. Accounting and budgeting manuals are inplace and are adhered to. Financial statements have full disclosureand are audited regularly and on time.

56

2.2.9 EFFICIENCY IN COLLECTION OFSEWAGE CHARGES


Unit

%

Rs croreper annum

Rs croreper annum

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in collection ofsewage charges

a. Current revenues collectedin the given year




Definition

Efficiency in collection is defined as current yearrevenues collected, expressed as a percentage of thetotal operating revenues, for the correspondingtime period.

Revenues collected for bills raised during the year.This should exclude collection of arrears asinclusion of arrears will skew the performancereflected. Collection efficiency is in fact anindicator of how many arrears are being built up,and therefore only current revenues shouldbe considered.

The total quantum of revenues related to sewageservices that are billed during the year. This shouldinclude revenues from all sources related to sewagesuch as taxes, charges, cess, surcharges, etc.





Measurement Annually Measurement Zone/DMA level


For a utility, it is not just enough to have an appropriate tariff structure that enables cost recoveryobjectives, but also efficient collection of revenues that are due to the utility. It is also important thatthe revenues are collected in the same financial year, without allowing for dues to get accumulated asarrears. It is therefore critical to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for collection efficiencymay be considered at 90 percent, since it is possible that about 10 percent of the dues may bedelayed to the next year.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of arrears versus current year revenuecollection. A cash basis of accounting is followed. The accountingcode structure does not enable clear segregation ofwater revenues.


Intermediate level (B) There is a clear segregation of current year revenues collection versusarrears collection. However, revenue collection is not matched againstthe specific bill issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting arefollowed, and therefore deposits and advances are not included inincome and expenditure, respectively.

Highest/preferred level Collection records are maintained for each billing cycle. Collectionsof reliability (A) are clearly identified against the specific bill which has been issued.

Overall accrual principles of accounting are followed, andtherefore deposits and advances are not included in income andexpenditure, respectively. The accounting code structure also enablesmonitoring of billing and collections for each ward within the ULB.

58

SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT2.3

2.3.1 HOUSEHOLD LEVEL COVERAGE OF SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES


Unit

%

Number

Number

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Household level coverage of SWMservices through door-to-doorcollection of waste

a. Total number of households andestablishments in the service area

b. Total number of householdsand establishments with dailydoorstep collection

Coverage


Definition

Percentage of households and establishments thatare covered by a daily doorstep collection system.

The total number of households and establishments(not properties) in the service area should becalculated. The service area refers to either theward or the ULB limits.

Include doorstep collection by the ULB itself or ULBapproved service providers. This can even includedoor-to-door collection systems operated byRWAs, etc.







This indicator provides the coverage of door-to-door solid waste collection services. Doorstep levelcollection is an essential and critical starting point in the entire chain of scientific SWM services.Waste-free clean roads and drains, scientific treatment of waste so as to maximise treatment,recycling and disposal can all be achieved in a sustainable manner only if door-to-door collection ofwaste is sustained. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Coverage numbers based on aggregate city level estimate by theservice provider.

Intermediate level (C) Coverage is estimated on the basis of the number of wards servicedby doorstep collection, as a percentage of the total number of wardsin the ULB.

Intermediate level (B) Estimation of coverage is based on the average daily waste collectedby the ULB (in tonnes) from areas serviced by doorstep wastecollection, divided by the estimated daily waste generation (intonnes) by the entire city. Daily averages are based on the actualweighing of the waste collected on designated weighbridges,measured daily for seven consecutive days in a month.

Highest/preferred level Calculation is based on the actual number of households andof reliability (A) establishments with doorstep collection as stated by the agency

involved in doorstep collection. This may be verified fromrecords of user charges collected for the doorstep collection services.The total number of households/establishments should be measuredfrom updated GIS spatial data of the city.

60

2.3.2 EFFICIENCY OF COLLECTION OFMUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE


Unit

%

Tonnesper

month

Tonnesper

month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator


a. Total waste that is generatedand which needs to be collected

b. Total quantum of waste that iscollected by the ULB or authorisedservice providers



Definition

The total waste collected by the ULB and authorisedservice providers versus the total waste generatedwithin the ULB, excluding recycling or processing atthe generation point. (Typically, some amount ofwaste generated is either recycled or reused by thecitizens themselves. This quantity is excluded fromthe total quantity generated, as reliable estimateswill not be available for these.)

The total waste generated excluding wasteprocessed or recycled at the generation point.This would depend on the population of the city,and the composition of economic activities.

The total waste collected from households,establishments and common collection points.This should be based on actual weighing of thecollected waste. Daily generation should beaggregated to calculate the total monthly quantum.This should exclude any special drives for wastecollection, and waste generated from one-offactivities such as demolitions, desilting canals, etc.

Collection efficiency = [(b/a)*100]




Measurement Monthly Measurement Ward level


This indicator is relatively easy to measure, and has been used for a long time as an indicator ofefficiency in collection of waste. While the indicator is well understood, the reliability variessignificantly on account of different methods used for measurement. Collection efficiency shouldmeasure waste collected in the normal course by SWM systems. Typically, the uncollected waste tendsto gradually find its way into recycling, or is strewn along the roads, clogs the drains or in case ofbio-degradable waste, putrefies and degrades. Therefore, collection efficiency is a key performanceindicator. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Waste generation estimates are based on empirical standards of percapita waste generation based on the size of the city. Inadequate dataavailable on waste collection, which is estimated based on the numberof trips made by waste collection vehicles to the disposal site.

Intermediate level (C) Nil.

Intermediate level (B) Waste generation estimates are based on empirical standards of percapita waste generation based on the size of the city. Data availableon waste collection, based on waste weighed by the weighbridge atthe disposal site.

Highest/preferred level Waste generation estimates are based on quarterly surveys/samples ofof reliability (A) statistically significant and representative number of households and

establishments. Seasonal variation in waste quantity generation iscaptured in these estimates. Waste collection is based on actualweighing of waste on a weighbridge at the disposal site (which is theaggregate of the waste measured at the composting yard, sanitarylandfill site, and waste taken out for recycling/reuse after it hasbeen collected).

62

2.3.3 EXTENT OF SEGREGATION OFMUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE


Unit

%

Tonnesper

month

Tonnesper

month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of segregation of waste

a. Quantum of waste thatis segregated


Extent of segregation


Definition

Percentage of waste from households andestablishments that is segregated. Segregation shouldat least be at the level of separation of wet and drywaste at the source, that is, at the household orestablishment level. Ideally, the separation should bein the following categories: bio-degradable waste,waste that is non-biodegradable, and hazardousdomestic waste such as batteries, etc. In line with thisdescription, the ULB may further refine the criteria forclassifying waste as being ‘segregated’.

It is important that waste segregated at the source isnot again mixed, but transported through the entirechain in a segregated manner. It is thereforeimportant that this indicator is based onmeasurement of waste arriving in a segregatedmanner at the treatment/disposal site, rather thanbeing measured at the collection point.

The total quantum of waste that arrives in asegregated manner at the treatment and/or disposalsite (that is, composting yards, waste treatmentplants, landfill sites, etc.). Waste that arrives at theselocations in an unsegregated manner should not beconsidered. Waste taken away by recyclers fromintermediate points should be added tothis quantum.

The total waste collected from households,establishments and common collection points. Thisshould be based on actual weighing of the collectedwaste, and should exclude any special drives forwaste collection, and waste generated from one-offactivities such as demolitions, desilting canals, etc.(This corresponds to the quantity of (b), as measuredfor the indicator on collection efficiency.)

Extent of segregation = [(a/b)*100]






Segregation of waste is a critical requirement for sustainable SWM systems. Segregation enablesrecycling, reuse, treatment and scientific disposal of the different components of waste. Segregationof waste should ideally be at source, and should then also be transported in a segregated manner upto the point of treatment and/or disposal. If waste is received at these points in a segregated manner,it can be safely assumed that it has been segregated at source and transported so, while the conversemay not be true. Therefore, segregation is being measured at this point of receipt, rather than at thepoint of collection. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent. In cases where the ULB isadopting an integrated approach with various options for waste treatment where segregation is alsotaken care of, compliance with this provision may not be mandatory.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Segregation is estimated by the service provider without anydocumentation of measurement methods adopted.

Intermediate level (C) All households and establishments provided two separate wastecontainers are assumed to be ‘segregating’ waste. Then thepercentage of households provided with two bins is used as thebasis for estimating the extent of segregation.

Intermediate level (B) Estimates of segregation are based on the input from agenciesengaged in doorstep collection. The aggregates of estimates across allareas should be added up for the ULB-wide estimate.

Highest/preferred level The daily total of waste arriving in a segregated manner at disposal/of reliability (A) treatment sites should be measured, on the basis of weighing of

individual trips. Waste taken away by recyclers from intermediatepoints should be added to this quantum, which can be assessed fromwholesale waste recycling traders (kabadiwalas).

Alternately, the quantum of unsegregated waste received at thedisposal point, that is, the composting yard, landfill site, or dump site,should be measured through regular weighing on a weighbridge.The daily totals should be arrived at by adding weights of all trips.The difference between the quantum collected and this quantum(unsegregated waste) should be equal to the quantity thatis segregated.

A daily log of waste intake at processing facilities is maintained, whichis aggregated for the monthly data.

64

2.3.4 EXTENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLIDWASTE RECOVERED


Unit

%

Tonnesper

month

Tonnesper

month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of recovery ofwaste collected

a. Amount of waste that isprocessed or recycled


Recovery


Definition

This is an indication of the quantum of wastecollected, which is either recycled or processed.This is expressed in terms of percentage ofwaste collected.

The total quantum of waste intake by wasteprocessing/recycling facilities operated by the ULBor operator at a city/ward/locality level. Inertmatter, and other material refused by theprocessing/recycling facilities, which will go backto the dumping sites/landfills, should be deductedfrom the intake quantities.

Waste collected at intermediate points by informalmechanisms (rag pickers, etc.) and fed back intothe recycling chain should be included in thisquantity. This can be assessed through data fromwholesale traders of such waste at the city level.Typically, there would be a few wholesalers at thecity level from whom data can be collected.

The total waste collected from households,establishments and common collection points.This should be based on actual weighing of thecollected waste. This should exclude any specialdrives for waste collection, and waste generatedfrom one-off activities such as demolitions,desilting canals, etc. (This corresponds to thequantity of (b), as measured for the indicator oncollection efficiency.)

Extent of recovery = [a/b ]*100






Environmental sustainability demands that the maximum amount of waste should be either recycled,reused or processed. While the processing, recycling and reuse should be carried out without creatingany health and environmental hazards, the total quantum of waste recovered is in itself a keyperformance parameter. Therefore, measurement of this indicator is critical. The benchmark value forthis indicator will depend on the amount of inert matter included in the waste collected by the ULB.Waste composition is typically unique for each city, while being within a broad range of values forsimilar cities. The benchmark value for this indicator could be 80 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Recovery estimates are based on the installed capacity of wasteprocessing facilities.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation of waste recovery is based on an aggregate mass balance.From the total estimated waste collection, deduct moisture lossand amount disposed at landfill/dump sites to arrive at the extent ofwaste recovered in the ULB.

Intermediate level (B) Recovery estimates are based on measured consumption/inputs at thelarge, organised waste processing facilities, such as composting yardsand waste-to-energy facilities.

Highest/preferred level of Recovery estimates are based on measured consumption/inputs at thereliability (A) large, organised waste processing facilities, such as composting yards

and waste-to-energy facilities. To this quantum, unorganised sectorwaste intake for processing is added. This will typically includecommunity/colony level composting facilities, waste collected forrecycling and reuse through the chain of waste recyclers (aggregatesmeasured at the wholesaler level). A daily log of waste intake atprocessing facilities is maintained, which is aggregated for themonthly data.

66

2.3.5 EXTENT OF SCIENTIFIC DISPOSAL OFMUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE


Unit

%

Tonnesper

month

Tonnesper

month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of scientific disposal of wasteat landfill sites

a. Total waste disposed in‘compliant’ landfills every month

b. Total waste disposed in alllandfills every month

Extent of scientific disposal


Definition

The amount of waste that is disposed in landfills thathave been designed, built, operated and maintainedas per standards laid down by Central agencies.This extent of compliance should be expressed as apercentage of the total quantum of waste disposedat landfill sites, including open dump sites.

A daily log of waste being disposed at such‘compliant’ landfill sites should be maintained,based on actual measurement at weighbridges thatare preferably located at the entrance to such sites.The monthly total should be the sum of daily totalsin the month.

The total waste disposed after collection andrecovery (if any) at landfills (including compliantlandfills and open dumpsites). This quantity shouldbe based on actual measurement at weighbridgesthat are preferably located at the entrance to suchsites. The monthly total should be the sum of dailytotals in the month.

Extent of scientific disposal = [a/b]*100






Inert waste should finally be disposed at landfill sites, which are designed, built, operated andmaintained according to standards laid down in prevailing laws and manuals of nodal agencies. Thisincludes collection and treatment of leachate at the landfill site. The extent of compliance should beevaluated against the total quantum of waste that is disposed at landfills. This is a criticalperformance parameter from an environmental sustainability perspective. The benchmark value forthis indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Poor data and records are available at landfill sites. There is nodocumentation of operations. Estimates are provided on the basis ofestimated number of trips of trucks to the landfill site.

Intermediate level (C) The quantity of waste being disposed at the landfill site is estimated onthe basis of mass balance, that is, the total waste collected lessmoisture loss and waste recovered through recycling or processing.Actual measurements are not available.

Intermediate level (B) Records are maintained and good quality data are available on thequantity of waste being disposed at the landfill/open dumping sites.However, there are no clear records on O&M of landfill operations.

Highest/preferred level Accurate and detailed records on the amount of waste being disposedof reliability (A) at landfill sites are regularly collected, and records are maintained on

operating practices and routines carried out at all landfill sites.

68



Unit

%

Numberper

month

Numberper

month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in redressal ofcustomer complaints

a. Total number of SWM-relatedcomplaints received per month


Efficiency in redressalof complaints


Definition

The total number of SWM-related complaintsredressed within 24 hours of receipt of thecomplaint, as a percentage of the total number ofSWM-related complaints received in the giventime period.

The total number of all SWM-related complaintsfrom consumers received during the month.Systems for receiving and logging in complaintsshould be effective and easily accessible to thecitizens. Points of customer contact will includecommon phone numbers, written complaints atward offices, collection centres, drop boxes, onlinecomplaints on the website, etc.

The total number of SWM-related complaints thatare satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours or thenext working day, within that particular month.Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should beendorsed by the person making the complaint inwriting, as part of any format/proforma that isused to track complaints.





Measurement Monthly Measurement Ward level


It is important that in essential services such as SWM, the utility has effective systems to capturecustomer complaints/grievances, escalate them internally for remedial action and resolve them.While many ULBs/utilities have put in place systems to capture complaints, much more work needs tobe done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactorily resolving those complaints on time. AsSWM is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is 24 hours or the next working day. Itis therefore important to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for this indicator will depend ona number of factors such as the size of the city, manpower, institutional network, etc. The benchmarkvalue for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Complaints data are not maintained either at ward or city level.




Complaints are segregated into different categories and are collatedthrough a computer network or other systems, and tracked on adaily basis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained.Consumers endorse complaints being addressed on themunicipal proforma.

70

2.3.7 EXTENT OF COST RECOVERY INSWM SERVICES


Unit

%

Rs crore

Rs crore

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of cost recovery for the ULBin SWM services



Cost recovery


Definition

This indicator denotes the extent to which the ULB isable to recover all operating expenses relating toSWM services from operating revenues of sourcesrelated exclusively to SWM.

This indicator is defined as the total annualoperating revenues from SWM as a percentage ofthe total annual operating expenses on SWM.

Should include all operating expenses incurred bythe ULB towards SWM services. This should includecosts related to O&M expenses, all directlyattributable administrative and establishmentexpenditure (including salaries, wages, contractlabour hire charges, etc.). Operating expensesshould also include payments to contractors foractivities outsourced by the ULB. Should excludeinterest payments and principal repayments.

Should include all taxes and charges for SWM, plusproceeds from processing or recycling that accrueto the account of the ULB. This should excludeincome earned by contractors, or the informalsector, that is not passed onto the ULB.

Cost recovery = [b/a]*100






Financial sustainability is a critical factor for all basic urban services. In services such as SWM, somebenefits are received directly by the consumers while some other benefits accrue indirectly through acleaner and sustainable environment, apart from public health benefits. Therefore, costs related toSWM may be recovered through a combination of taxes and user charges. In case of SWM, there ispotential to supplement user charges with revenues that can be gained from recycling, reuse andconversion of waste to either compost or fuel or directly to energy. Therefore, it is critical formeasuring overall cost recovery. There is enough past precedence to reveal that the benchmark valuefor cost recovery may be set at 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of budget heads related to solid waste fromother functions such as street sweeping and drainage. A cash-basedaccounting system is practiced. Account codes are not enteredfunction-wise, and it is difficult to estimate SWM-relatedestablishment, administrative and O&M costs. Disclosures andreporting are not timely.


Intermediate level (B) Budget heads related to SWM are segregated. Key costs related toSWM are identifiable, although complete segregation is not practiced.Key income and expenditure are recognised based on accrualprinciples. Disclosures are complete and on time. Accounts arefinalised and closed, although the audit may be pending.

Highest/preferred level Budget heads related to SWM are clearly separated and costof reliability (A) allocation standards for common costs are in place. The accrual-

based double entry accounting system is practiced. Accountingstandards comparable to commercial accounting standards with clearguidelines for recognition of income and expenditure are followed.Accounting and budgeting manuals are in place andare adhered to. Financial statements have full disclosure and areaudited regularly and on time.

72

2.3.8 EFFICIENCY IN COLLECTION OFSWM CHARGES


Unit

%

Rs croreper annum

Rs croreper annum

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in collection ofSWM charges

a. Current revenues collectedin the given year


Cost recovery


Definition

Efficiency in collection is defined as current yearrevenues collected, expressed as a percentage ofthe total operating revenues, for the correspondingtime period.

Revenues collected for bills raised during the year.This should exclude collection of arrears asinclusion of arrears will skew the performancereflected. Collection efficiency is in fact anindicator of how many arrears are being built up,and therefore only current revenues shouldbe considered.

The total quantum of revenues related to SWMservices that are billed during the year. This shouldinclude revenues from all sources related to SWMsuch as taxes, charges, cess, surcharges, etc.





Measurement Annually Measurement Ward level


For a utility, it is not just enough to have an appropriate tariff structure that enables cost recoveryobjectives, but also efficient collection of revenues that are due to the utility. It is also important thatthe revenues are collected in the same financial year, without allowing for dues to get accumulated asarrears. It is therefore critical to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for collection efficiencymay be considered at 90 percent, since it is possible that about 10 percent of the dues may bedelayed to the next year.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of arrears versus current year revenuecollection. Cash basis of accounting is followed. The accounting codestructure does not enable clear segregation of revenues.


Intermediate level (B) There is clear segregation of current year revenues collection versusarrears collection. However, revenue collection is not matched againstthe specific bill issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting arefollowed, and therefore deposits and advances are not included inincome and expenditure, respectively.

Highest/preferred level Collection records are maintained for each billing cycle.of reliability (A) Collections are clearly identified against the specific bill which has

been issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting are followed,and therefore deposits and advances are not included in incomeand expenditure, respectively. The accounting code structure alsoenables monitoring of billing and collections for each wardwithin the ULB.

74

STORM WATERDRAINAGE2.4

2.4.1 COVERAGE OF STORM WATERDRAINAGE NETWORK


Unit

%

km

km

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Coverage of storm waterdrainage network

a. Total length of road networkin the ULB

b. Total length of primary,secondary and tertiary drains

Coverage of storm waterdrainage networks


Definition

Coverage is defined in terms of the percentageof road length covered by the storm waterdrainage network

Only consider roads that are more than3.5 m wide carriageway

Only consider drains that are trained, madeof pucca construction and are covered.





This indicator provides an estimation of the extent of coverage of the storm water drainage networkin the city. This value should be 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Not applicable.

Intermediate level (C) Estimated from city road maps, not updated in the past five years.

Intermediate level (B) Estimated from city road maps (that are detailed and to scale), whichhave been updated in the past five years.

Highest/preferred level of Actual ground level surveys are carried out to measure drain andreliability (A) road length. Surveys are carried out to verify that drains are of pucca

construction and covered.



76

2.4.2 INCIDENCE OFWATER LOGGING/FLOODING


Unit

Numberper year

Number

Numberper year

Numberper year

Data Requirements

Indicator

Aggregate number of incidents ofwater logging reported in a year

a. Identification of flood pronepoints within the ULB limits. Thepoints may be named as A1, A2,A3,….An

b. Number of occasions offlooding/water logging in a year

The aggregate number ofinstances or occasions of waterlogging/flooding reportedacross the city in a year


Definition

The number of times water logging is reported in ayear, at flood prone points within the city.

Flood prone points within the city should beidentified as locations that experience waterlogging at key road intersections, or along a roadlength of 50 m or more, or in a locality affecting50 households or more.

An occasion or incident of flooding/water loggingshould be considered if it affects transportationand normal life. Typically, stagnant water for morethan four hours of a depth more than six inches.

Aggregate incidence = (b at A1) + (b at A2) +….. (b at An)




This indicator provides a picture of the extent to which water logging and flooding are reported in theULB within a year, which have impacted a significant number of persons as well as normal life andmobility. This indicator provides an assessment of the impact or outcome of storm water drainagesystems. The benchmark value for this indicator should be zero.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Not applicable.


Intermediate level (B) Based on reports/complaints filed by citizens.

Highest/preferred level of Flood prone points should be first identified based on reports/reliability (A) complaints filed by citizens, or by direct observations, and reported

into a central control room. Monitoring stations (in charge ofspecific jurisdictions) should regularly monitor instances of floodingin the respective wards/zones, as mentioned above. Data shouldbe captured by time, date, location and extent of flooding.



MAKING SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKING OPERATIONAL

80

3.1.1 INITIATING PERFORMANCEREPORTING

Section III provides brief guidelines on howService Level Benchmarking can beoperationalised. While each ULB/utility will needto define and institutionalise the systemsmentioned in Section I, a few common guidancepoints are mentioned here for reference.

a Keep systems simple: Data formats andother processes defined for performancemeasurement should be kept very simple tostart with. For ULBs/utilities that have not had

robust management information systems, itis important to take gradual steps;

a Leadership should champion theinitiative: The Municipal Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer of the ULB/utilityshould lead this initiative of making ServiceLevel Benchmarking operational. All headsof departments will need to play an activerole in this. The involvement of the Mayor/Chairperson and other key electedrepresentatives from the StandingCommittees at the early stages is importantto bring in the perspective of the electedleadership; and

a Training and orientation: Staff at all levelswill need to undergo training andorientations on Service Level Benchmarking,to enable them to play their respective rolesin the overall performance managementsystem. Officers at the heads of departmentlevel should take the lead in orienting theirrespective staff.

MAKING SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING OPERATIONAL

3.1 PERFORMANCE REPORT CARDS

Section I of this Handbook outlines theframework and provides guidance on institutingperformance management systems, with the SLBsas the basis for monitoring and managing theperformance of urban service delivery. Section II ofthis Handbook defines each of the SLBs, andoutlines the most desirable system that should beapplied for measuring the SLBs.

MAKING SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKING OPERATIONAL3.O


3.1.2 PERFORMANCEREPORT CARDS

The minimum frequency of computation of theperformance indicator, and the lowest level ofgeographic jurisdiction for which it should bemeasured, have been specified in the data sheetsfor each indicator. On the basis of these, thesuggested frequency of reporting within theULB/utility, and State/Central governments isprovided in Table 1. Also, the geographicjurisdiction for which the indicators should bemeasured is specified in Table 1.

ULBs/utilities are advised to follow the frameworksuggested in Table 1. However, the ULB/utilitymay make minor changes in the frequency orjurisdiction of reporting, taking into account thesize of the city and its prevailing systems. Theendeavour should always be to report performancein as disaggregated a manner as possible, that is,reporting performance at the highest frequencyas possible, and at the smallest geographicaljurisdiction as possible.

82

TABLE 1: SUGGESTED FREQUENCY ANDJURISDICTION OF REPORTING


SLB No. Urban Service Frequency Frequency Frequency Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdictionof Measure- of Report- of Report- for Measure- for Report- for Report-ment by ing within ing to State/ ment by ing within ing to State/ULB/Utility ULB/Utility Central Govt. ULB/Utility ULB/Utility Central Govt.

1. WATER SUPPLY

2.1.1 Coverage of water supply connections Quarterly Quarterly Annually Zone/DMA Ward ULB

2.1.2 Per capita supply of water Monthly Monthly Annually Zone/DMA Ward ULB

2.1.3 Extent of metering of water connections Quarterly Quarterly Annually Zone/DMA Ward ULB

2.1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) Quarterly Quarterly Annually ULB ULB ULB

2.1.5 Continuity of water supply Monthly Monthly Annually Zone/ Zone/ ULBDMA DMA

2.1.6 Quality of water supplied Monthly Monthly Annually ULB ULB ULB

2.1.7 Efficiency in redressal of Monthly Monthly Annually Zone/ Zone/ ULBcustomer complaints DMA DMA

2.1.8 Cost recovery in water supply services Quarterly Quarterly Annually ULB ULB ULB

2.1.9 Efficiency in collection of water Annually Annually Annually Zone/DMA Ward ULBsupply-related charges

2. SEWAGE MANAGEMENT (SEWERAGE AND SANITATION)

2.2.1 Coverage of toilets Quarterly Quarterly Annually Ward Ward ULB

2.2.2 Coverage of sewage Quarterly Quarterly Annually Ward Ward ULBnetwork services

2.2.3 Collection efficiency of Monthly Monthly Annually ULB ULB ULBsewage network

2.2.4 Adequacy of sewage Annually Annually Annually ULB ULB ULBtreatment capacity

2.2.5 Quality of sewage treatment Monthly Monthly Annually ULB ULB ULB

2.2.6 Extent of reuse and recycling Annually Annually Annually ULB ULB ULBof sewage

2.2.7 Efficiency in redressal Monthly Monthly Annually Zone/ Zone/ ULBof customer complaints DMA DMA

2.2.8 Extent of cost recovery in Annually Annually Annually ULB ULB ULBsewage management

2.2.9 Efficiency in collection of Annually Annually Annually Zone/DMA Ward ULBsewage-related charges


On the basis of this framework, ULBs should preparePerformance Report Cards, which would form the basisfor reporting and monitoring performance.

The Report Cards should necessarily contain thefollowing information:

a The time period for which performance isbeing reported;

a The specific urban service and SLB for whichperformance is being reported;

a Current baseline and actual accomplishment ofperformance as time passes;

a Targeted performance levels for subsequent timeperiods (typically four to six time periods). For indicatorsthat are reviewed monthly or quarterly, targets shouldbe set for the next four to six months/quarters. Onlythen can tangible targets be set and monitored;

a The measure of reliability of the systems, on the basis ofwhich the indicator has been measured (either A or B orC or D); and

a A brief plan of action for achieving the targetedperformance level for each of the forthcomingtime periods.

Two sample report cards are illustrated in the Annex.

SLB No. Urban Service Frequency Frequency Frequency Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdictionof Measure- of Report- of Report- for Measure- for Report- for Report-ment by ing within ing to State/ ment by ing within ing to State/ULB/Utility ULB/Utility Central Govt. ULB/Utility ULB/Utility Central Govt.

3. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

2.3.1 Household level coverage Quarterly Quarterly Annually Ward Ward ULBof SWM services

2.3.2 Efficiency of collection of Monthly Monthly Annually Ward Ward ULBmunicipal solid waste

2.3.3 Extent of segregation of Monthly Monthly Annually ULB ULB ULBmunicipal solid waste

2.3.4 Extent of municipal Monthly Monthly Annually ULB ULB ULBsolid waste recovered

2.3.5 Extent of scientific disposal Monthly Monthly Annually ULB ULB ULBof municipal solid waste

2.3.6 Efficiency in redressal of Monthly Monthly Annually Ward Ward ULBcustomer complaints

2.3.7 Extent of cost recovery Annually Annually Annually ULB ULB ULBin SWM services

2.3.8 Efficiency in collection of Annually Annually Annually Ward Ward ULBSWM-related charges

4. STORM WATER DRAINAGE

2.4.1 Coverage of storm water Annually Annually Annually Ward Ward ULBdrainage network

2.4.2 Incidence of water Quarterly Quarterly Annually Ward Ward ULBlogging/flooding

84

SUSTAINING THE PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM3.2

It would be as much a challenge to sustain a goodperformance management system as to set up andoperationalise it. Listed below are a few criticalsuccess factors to sustain a performancemanagement system for urban services:

a Improvement in data systems: Along withperformance levels, the review should alsocontinuously focus on the data systems throughwhich data are collected and performancereported. Through a process of continuousimprovement, the data systems should bebrought to the desired levels of highest reliabilityof measurement. Independent third partyagencies may be engaged for verification of theperformance reports on a selective basis. Datacollection and reporting should, however, alwaysbe with the ULB/utility, else ownership ofperformance could be compromised;

a Maintaining performance reporting andreview time cycles: To maintain the sanctity ofthe system, performance should be diligentlyreported and reviewed at the scheduled time

period. If review is not periodically undertaken,the data collection, analysis and reportingsystems are likely to degenerate over time;

a Dissemination and disclosure: Disseminationand disclosure should be essential elements ofthe performance management system.Performance data should be reported in theULB’s/utility’s annual reports, be shared withmedia and other stakeholders in the interest oftransparency and for enhanced accountability.

a Input for planning and resource allocation:Performance reports should form an importantinput for planning investments in capital worksand operational improvements, and therefore inthe budgeting process; and

a System of awards and incentives: A system ofawards and incentives is an important andessential component of a performancemanagement system. Awards and incentivesshould be directed to the field level staff that isresponsible for direct impact on service delivery.



ILLUSTRATIVEPERFORMANCEREPORT CARD

86

Sector: Water Supply SLB: Coverage of Water Supply Connections

Reporting Frequency: Annual Reporting Period: FY 2008-09

Reporting Jurisdiction: Limits of **** Municipal Corporation Performance Report submitted to: State Government

All figures are in %

Time Period Performance Performance Performance Action Plan to Achieve the TargetAchieved Targeted Achieved as

per Reliability ofMeasurementLevel

FY 2008-09 71 B(baseline)

FY 2009-10 75 � All backlog applications for new connections willbe cleared in the next 12 months

FY 2010-11 85 � Major source augmentation and transmissionproject will be completed

� Regularisation of all illegal connections innorth of the city

FY 2011-12 90 � Distribution improvement project will be taken up� Standposts will be replaced in slums in

Ward nos ___ to ___� Regularisation of all illegal connections in

south of the city

FY 2012-13 95 � Standposts will be replaced in slums inWard nos ___ to ___

ILLUSTRATIVE PERFORMANCE REPORT CARD


Sector: Solid Waste Management SLB: Household level Coverage of SWM Services

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly Reporting Period: January-March 2009

Reporting Jurisdiction: Ward No. 11 of **** Municipal Corporation Performance Report submitted to:Standing Committee

All figures are in %

Time Period Performance Performance Performance Action Plan to Achieve the TargetAchieved Targeted Achieved as

per Reliabilityof MeasurementLevel

Jan-Mar 2009 nil B(baseline)

Apr-Jun 2009 75 � An NGO from the area will be encouragedand supported to start the doorstep collectionprocess. If the NGO does not start the activity,it will be contracted out. Operations willcommence by May 2009.

� All RWAs and apartments in the ward will beencouraged to keep waste at the doorstep andnot dispose it directly into the municipal bin.

� Councillor for Ward will lead the process.

Jul-Sept 2009 90 � The shopkeepers association will next bebrought into the loop. The market associationwill be encouraged to either pay user chargesto the NGO contractor, or alternatelycollect waste at the doorstep throughown arrangements.

� Fine for littering will be introduced.

� Collection beats network will be reviewedand expanded.

Oct-Dec 2009 95 � The balance houses, those not within RWAs orapartments, will be encouraged to keep wasteat the doorstep for collection.

� Slums/poor households will be provided streetcorner bins, at multiple points in each slum,from where waste will be collected.

Jan-Mar 2010 100 � Intensive communication will be introduced.Roadside bins/dhalos will be demolished.

Ministry of Urban DevelopmentGovernment of IndiaNirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 011Phone: 011-23062309, 23061295www.urbanindia.nic.in P

ho

togr

aphs

by

the W

ater

and

San

itat

ion P

rogr

amC

reat

ed

by

Wri

te M

ed

ia

HANDBOOK OF


MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENTGOVERNMENT OF INDIA

ministry of urban development government of india...

Documents