monitoring and targeting the unserved: can we? should we ... · “prioritize the poorest and...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Monitoring and targeting the unserved:
Can we? Should we? And how?
14 Oct 2013
Ryan Cronk
Photo: RC, 2013
2
Unserved
workshop
agenda
Background and context
Part I: Who are the
unserved?
Discussion: Should they be
targeted?
Part II: Tools, indicators, and
monitoring strategies
Discussion: Lessons from the
field Photo: RC, 2013
The global challenge
3
Millennium Development Goal (MDG) water component
768 million people drinking unsafe sources
Sources: Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-water, 2013
Post-2015 goals: universal access
MEL
Photo: RC, 2013
Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
Strategy for Sustainable Safe Water Access:
“Prioritize the poorest and hardest-to-reach populations”
“improve the health, education, and livelihoods of the ultra poor”
“..support water programs that target impoverished, semi-arid and geographically remote areas with low water access and sanitation coverage, and high incidence of water-related disease...”
4
Photo: KL, 2013
Background and context:
Water Institute MEL team
Evaluating WaSH sector monitoring and
targeting of the unserved
Developing tools for improving targeting
and post-project M&E
Sharing of lessons learned:
– Learning from partners
– Best tools, techniques, approaches
5 Photo: RC, 2012
Part I: Who are the unserved
and ultrapoor?
6 Photo: KL, 2013
1990 2015 and beyond
The “unserved” without
Drinking water services
0%
100%
Drinking-water coverage in country “X”
What characteristics define the
remaining few without service?
Curve based on Yerg et al, 2013
People with access to improved
Drinking-water services
7
Covera
ge %
8
Households
Within
Communities
Communities
Extra-Household
Dimensions of
disadvantage
among the
unserved Within
Household
Age Gender
Disability Property
ownership
Marital status
Family status
Health status
Economic
status
Economic status
Ethnicity
Geographic
location
Race
Language
Religion
As informed by the Prohibited Grounds for Discrimination for the Human Right to Water
Age
Gender
Disability
Ethnicity
Race
Language
…and
characteristics
Statistics on the disadvantaged
Poverty:
– 1.4 billion <$1.25/day
– 2.7 billion <$2/day
Disabled: 1 billion
Elderly: 2 billion by 2050
Orphans: 132 million
Indigenous: 370 million
9
Photo: GK, 2012
10
Hardest to reach
Easiest to reach
Moderately hard
to reach
S
E
R
V
E
D
U
N
S
E
R
V
E
D
Photo: KL, 2013
Hardest to reach
Easiest to reach
Moderately hard to reach
S
E
R
V
E
D
U
N
S
E
R
V
E
D
1990s Today
Drinking-water coverage in country “X”
Hardest to reach
Easiest to reach
Moderately hard
to reach
11
U
N
S
E
R
V
E
D
We can’t reach
everyone first, so who
should we prioritize?
Photo: KL, 2013
Three key dimensions:
1. Population level spatial
dimensions
2. Population level social
dimensions
3. Individual level dimensions
Spatial Dimensions
Socia
l D
imensi
ons
Near major roads,
towns, NGOs, with
favorable geography
Dispersed rural,
mountainous, land-
locked, water scarce
Ethnic
minorities,
religious
minorities,
Language,
tribal groups,
nomadic +
pastoral
pops.
Unserved
with no
other
disadvantage
factors
Unserved conceptual model Population level dimensions
Hardest to reach
Easiest to reach
Moderately hard to reach
12
Unserved conceptual model Individual level dimensions
Examples:
Orphan
Disabled
Elderly
Health status (e.g. terminally ill, HIV positive)
Widows
13
Spatial Dimensions
Socia
l D
imensi
ons
Unserved conceptual model Examples of all three dimensions
Example: Predominately
Christian or Muslim
community near Tamale,
Ghana with no major
individual disadvantages
Easiest to Reach Hardest to Reach
Easiest
to
Reach
Hardest
to
Reach
Example: Disabled or
elderly person in a
community that has
drinking-water services
in Ethiopia
Example: ethnic
minority population in
a dispersed rural, water
scarce region of
Burkina Faso
14
WI MEL team projects
Exploratory learning exercises for quality
improvement
– Data exploration and typology of the
unserved
– Mapping
– Summary of evidence for partners
Monitoring manual
15
Q & A
16 Photo: RC, 2013
Discussion questions Does the WaSH sector have an ethical obligation
to ensure water and sanitation to the ‘ultrapoor’ and most disadvantaged?
What are the tradeoffs between reaching the ‘easiest’ of the unserved versus the ‘hardest to reach’ of the unserved?
We can’t reach everyone first, who do we prioritize to make the biggest impact and maximize investments?
17 Photo: KL, 2013
Part II: Review of strategies,
indicators and tools for targeting and
monitoring the ‘unserved’
18
Photo: KL, 2013
Background and context
• Many monitoring and targeting tools and
indicators in use by the WaSH and
development sectors
• What works best?
– Minimizing cost
– Minimizing intensity of effort
– Maximizing effectiveness
19
Evaluation criteria
• Applicability – Water and sanitation
– Poverty
– Other disadvantage factors
• Intensity – Time
– Skills and techniques
• Cost – Financial
– Personnel and staff resources
20 Photo: GK, 2012
Review of unserved tools and studies
21 Photo: GK, 2012
Review of unserved indicators
22
Demand Side
Supply Side
Photo: RC, 2013
Evaluation of tools
• Applicability – Many designed for microenterprise (not intended
for WaSH)
– Others have applicable characteristics
• Intensity – Lengthy and time consuming
– Advanced statistical and geospatial techniques
• Cost – Expensive
– Require many staff resources
23
Photo: RC, 2013
Intensity of monitoring effort (time & techniques)
Cost
of
monit
ori
ng e
ffort
(s
taff
and f
inancia
ls)
M&E continuum
Emory – MWA study
Low level of effort High level of effort
Low cost
High cost
Basic surveillance
24
large
household
surveys (e.g.
DHS)
Poverty mapping tools
M&E ‘sweet spot’
BRAC targeting
Proposed ‘unserved’ monitoring
strategy
• Core equity indicators in all communities
to ensure poorest are reached
• More in-depth monitoring in 20% of
communities will likely provide 80% of
the insight to inform other areas
25 Photo: RC, 2013
26 Core equity indicators in practice…
Type of flooring?
Roof material
Land ownership?
Has animal-drawn cart?
Bank account?
Photo: RC, 2012
Proposed non-core unserved
indicators
Examples:
Disability – Washington Group on Disability
Elderly – HelpAge
Ethnicity, minority status, religion – Demographic and Health Surveys and other large
household surveys
Settings beyond the household (e.g. schools and health facilities) – In development by the WI MEL team
27 Photo: RC, 2013
Q & A
28 Photo: RC, 2012
Discussion: Lessons from the
field How targeting and monitoring the
‘poorest of the poor’ occurs in practice
29 Photo: RC, 2013
30
Discussion Questions
(1) What are the strategies, indicators, and tools used by
partners for targeting and monitoring the unserved?
(2) What are the steps involved for engaging with government
and other partners for targeting the unserved?
(3) What data sources are partners currently using to monitor
and target the unserved?
(4) What are the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities of
‘unserved’ targeting and monitoring initiatives used in the
field?
Photo: RC, 2013
