Benchmarking Local Government Performance on Rural Sanitation Global Scaling up Sanitation Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM: Learning n ote Global Scaling Up Sanitation Project Key findings • Performance benchmarking Benchmarking Local enables districts to understand their performance and motivates Government Performance on them to improve. It helps to flag areas of strength, areas that Rural Sanitation: Learning need improvement, and linkages from Himachal Pradesh, India between them. • Through performance april 2010 benchmarking, inputs, outputs and processes can be linked to outcomes in monitoring rural sanitation sector performance in INTRODUCTION Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing India. Open defecation is a traditional be- or TSSM) leverages the TSC frame- • The use of performance havior in rural India. Conventional rural work and resources. TSSM combines benchmarking weighted scoring is sanitation programs have been based Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) designed to put heavier emphasis on the assumption that people def- with sanitation marketing to help local on, and therefore encourage, ecate in the open because they are too governments effectively use their funds achievement of outcomes. poor to afford the cost of constructing to end open defecation and achieve a toilet. Therefore, subsidies for upfront sustainable impact. • Benchmarking should enable policy capital costs were provided to generate makers and nodal agencies to demand for “sanitation,” interpreted PROBLEM STATEMENT monitor performance on a rational narrowly as a pour-flush toilet. These Measuring and monitoring perfor- basis and thereby channel resources programs increased the reported cov- mance on total sanitation and using and efforts on the basis of identified erage of household toilets but had a the results from these measurements strengths and weaknesses. poor record with respect to toilet usage, to build sector capacity is critical to cost-effectiveness, and sustainability. the development of the rural sanitation • The comparison of performance sector in India. However, the present provides an incentive to be on the To address the shortcomings of con- monitoring system in the Indian rural “top of the league table.” ventional rural sanitation programs, the sanitation sector focuses on inputs and • Periodic monitoring helps to Government of India launched the Total outputs (e.g., budget spent and toilets flag gaps in data accuracy and Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in 1999, constructed). Outcomes in the form of timeliness of data reporting. with the goal of achieving universal open-defecation free (ODF) communi- rural sanitation coverage by 2012. TSC ties are captured through the monitor- • Benchmarking needs to be linked advocates a demand-driven approach ing system for the fiscal incentive (Nirmal to an incentive in order to drive with significant involvement of local Gram Puraskar (NGP) or Clean Village performance improvement. governments, promotes informed choice Prize), but this is not linked to the moni- on technology options, and provides toring of inputs and outputs, making fiscal incentives for achievement of the analysis of linkages and measure- outcomes. The Water and Sanitation ment of efficacy difficult. In addition, in Program’s (WSP) Global Scaling Up the TSC online performance monitoring Sanitation Project (also known as Total system, states and districts are listed in 2 Benchmarking Local Government Performance on Rural Sanitation Global Scaling Up Sanitation Project alphabetical order, rather than by performance rank, making it Figure 1: Five-Step Performance Benchmarking difficult to make inter-district or inter-state comparisons. Process 1. Select indictors and ACTION collect data from TSC/NGP In India, TSSM has developed a performance monitoring and benchmarking model to strengthen outcome-based management of the rural sanitation sector. This model has 2. Assign scores to each been adopted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to indicator monitor performance across all 12 districts in the state in relation to rural sanitation and to benchmark the same on a monthly basis. 3. Sum up scores The model was designed to meet the following objectives: • Benchmarking performance should enable comparison. On the one hand, this helps to motivate poor performers 4. Benchmark districts based to come up in a league table. On the other hand, it acts as on scores achieved encouragement for the better performers to maintain and improve their position. • Benchmarking should enable policy makers and nodal agencies to monitor performance on a rational basis and thereby channel resources and efforts on the basis of 5. Disseminate identified strengths and weaknesses. results at periodic intervals How to Measure Performance A comprehensive performance-benchmarking model should: • Use objectively verifiable data on performance that can be triangulated, Table 1: Selection of Indicators • Assign weights to best practice indicators in such a way Variable indicator as to prioritize areas for improvement, # Measured type • Present data in a user-friendly way, and 1 % Rural Sanitation Budget Spent Input • Be undertaken regularly and shared widely. 2 % Household Toilet Coverage Target Output Achieved Five-Step Process 3 % School Sanitation Coverage Target Output In supporting the Government of Himachal Pradesh to intro- Achieved duce a performance benchmarking system for rural sanita- 4 Financial Efficiency (cost per ODF Process tion, the following five steps were followed (see Figure 1): community) 5 Success Rate of NGP Applications Process Step 1: Select indicators and collect data from tSC/ 6 No. of ODF Panchayats Outcome ngP. For a balanced measurement across inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes, the team finalized 7 No. of NGP Panchayats Outcome eight indicators in consultation with the Government of 8 % NGP Panchayats Outcome Himachal Pradesh (Table 1). www.wsp.org Global Scaling Up Sanitation Project Benchmarking Local Government Performance on Rural Sanitation 3 Table 2: Indicator Scoring # Variable Measured indicator type Max. Score Min. Score 1 % Rural Sanitation Budget Spent Input 5 0 2 % Household Toilet Coverage Target Achieved Output 15 0 3 % School Sanitation Coverage Target Achieved Output 10 0 4 Financial Efficiency (cost per ODF community) Process 15 0 5 Success Rate of NGP Applications Process 10 0 6 No. of ODF Panchayats Outcome 20 0 7 No. of NGP Panchayats Outcome 15 0 8 % NGP Panchayats Outcome 10 0 CuMuLatiVe PerforManCe SCore 100 0 Step 2: assign scores to each indicator. Each KEY LEARNINGS indicator was assigned a weighted score. A higher Although still in its nascent stages, a few emergent learnings priority was given to outcomes and processes rela- from the benchmarking experience to date can be noted. tive to inputs and outputs. Therefore, the number of These include: NGP Panchayats (local government) is given a higher score than the percentage of TSC budget spent on • Benchmarking can improve performance: Bench- toilets constructed. Each indicator was assigned a marking enables districts to understand their per- maximum and minimum range for scoring purposes, formance and motivates them to improve. Providing and the total score was capped at 100 (Table 2). an analysis of inputs, outputs, processes, and out- comes at a glance helps to flag areas of strength, areas Step 3: Sum up scores. Individual scores on each in- that need improvement, and linkages between them. dicator were added to arrive at a Cumulative Perfor- Unlike the present system of monitoring, it puts a spot- mance Score, out of a maximum of 100. light on the efficacy of resources being invested and the Step 4: Benchmark districts based on score achieved. corresponding results on the ground (e.g., by comparing Districts were ranked in descending order on the basis spending across districts per ODF local government). of the Cumulative Performance Score achieved. The A case in point is the performance of Solan, Bilaspur and scores were divided into four color-coded performance Mandi districts over the first three quarters of 2009. All bands based on the scores received. The scores were three started out as top performers. By the end of the then presented as a graph and a map showing district third quarter, Bilaspur district maintained their lead but performance relative to each other (Figure 2). Solan and Mandi did not. Bilaspur district is slowly but surely moving towards the superior performance band. Step 5: Disseminate results at periodic intervals: A consistent performance can be attributed to steady On the 10th of each month benchmarking results improvement over a period of time across most of the are sent out to all districts by the Rural Development benchmarking indicators (Figure 3). Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In addition, at the end of each quarter, a cumulative • Benchmarking is a management tool: The benchmark- performance trend analysis is sent to capture progress ing is undertaken by an agency one level above the level over time. Similar reports are prepared at six months, being benchmarked, typically the nodal agency for rural nine months and annual intervals. sanitation. The analysis and results enable the higher level www.wsp.org 4 Benchmarking Local Government Performance on Rural Sanitation Global Scaling Up Sanitation Project Figure 2: Sample Results from Himachal Pradesh Inter-district Benchmarking <25 (Below average) 25–49 (Average) 50–74 (Above average) >75 (Superior) 70 61 60 59 56 CHAMBA re 50 49 Chamba Keylong 46 LAHAUL & SPITI 40 Dharmshala CHINA 37 36 KANGRA 31 Kullu 30 HAMIRPUR KULLU KINNAUR 24