1 / 26

Evaluation of NGP awarded GPs in Karnataka Description, results, recommendations and way forward

Evaluation of NGP awarded GPs in Karnataka Description, results, recommendations and way forward. Presented to Mission Director, Karnataka State Water Supply and Sanitation Mission Chief Evaluation Officer, Karnataka Evaluation Authority. Sham N Kashyap GRAAM. Agenda. About NGP

remedy
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of NGP awarded GPs in Karnataka Description, results, recommendations and way forward

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of NGP awarded GPs in KarnatakaDescription, results, recommendations and way forward Presented to Mission Director, Karnataka State Water Supply and Sanitation Mission Chief Evaluation Officer, Karnataka Evaluation Authority Sham N Kashyap GRAAM

  2. Agenda • About NGP • Need for the study • Evaluation description • Focus and expected outcomes • Methodology • Summary of field activities • Profile of sampled GPs • Findings • Status of Individual Household Latrines (IHHLs) • Status of School and Anganwadi Toilets • Status of NGP fund utilization • GP and household characteristics • Field impressions • Recommendations • Inception Report – March 27 2013 • Field Update Report – May 20, 2013 • Presentation of initial findings to Princ. Secretary, RDPR – July 05, 2013 • Draft report – August 2013

  3. Nirmal Gram Puraskar • An incentive scheme started in 2003, to recognize the efforts of GPs: fully sanitized & open defecation free GPs • Resolution to ban ODF • All HHs have access to IHHLs and access to water • Hoped to add rigour and fillip to TSC • Objectives • promote safe sanitation and clean environment • incentivize PRIs towards ODF and clean SLWM practices • Clean environment • Social mobilization for sanitation and health • 38 GPs awarded in 2005, 2857 GPs awarded in 2011 (National level) • In Karnataka, NGP was awarded for the first time in 2007. (TSC implementation since 2005.)

  4. Need for the study • Pace of NGP awarding has slowed down • Visible regional variations in progress • Scope for improvement at the national level • To understand the current status, critical features of successful GPs

  5. Evaluation description • Focus • Programme outputs • Current status of infrastructure created • Activities carried out as part of NGP • Programme outcomes (of TSC and NGP) • Current status of utilization of the facilities created • Status of systems and processes for guaranteeing safe sanitation • Programme effectiveness • The levels of awareness, demand and prioritization of sanitation issues in the GP • Status of maintenance of infrastructure through TSC and NGP • Expected outcomes • Functional efficiency of GP and its achievements with regards to sanitation • Status of all Sanitation components in GP – Existence, Physical condition and their usage. • Sustainability issues and its mitigation (usage and maintenance of sanitation facilities including IHHLs, School, Anganwadi and Community latrines and SLWM) • Suggestions and Recommendations to maintain sustainability in NGP GPs

  6. Evaluation description • Specific Objectives • What is the current status of infrastructure related to sanitation in the GP • What is the status of utilization of the infrastructure created • What are the activities implemented under NGP • What are the factors affecting the sustainability of safe sanitation in the GP • What is the extent of slip back (if any) among the sampled GPs • Methodology • Mixture of methods – Descriptive and inferential statistics, FGDs, Field impressions • Sample • 10% (107 GPs, having won NGP between 2007 – 2011. • Regional representation, representation of different award years • Jalanirmal Project areas

  7. Evaluation description • Data collection tools • GP Questionnaire (in all the GPs visited) • FGDs (in all the GPs visited) • Village survey (2 villages of the GP) • School and Anganwadi survey (2 schools and 2 Anganwadis per GP) • Household survey (20 HHs) • Field visits: 4 teams, covering 2 pilots and 107 GPs between March – May 2013.

  8. Profile of sampled GPs

  9. Profile of sampled GPs • Field work completed in March – May 2013 • 57% of GPs fall in the population range of 5000 – 9999 • 70% of the selected GPs reported that the share of BPL households within their GPs was more than 50%.

  10. Findings – IHHL Status • An average improvement of 30% in IHHL status between 2007 and 2012-13. • Large regional disparities: Koppal, Bidar, Bellary, Raichur, Belgaum, Chamarajanagar, Chitradurga, Davanagere, and Dharwad have significant challenges • About 95% of HHs having IHHL were using it. • In atleast three GPs, status of IHHL seems to have worsened: Udigala, Nonavinakere and Konmelkunda GPs. • 31% of the housing scheme beneficiaries did not have IHHLs (out of 774 beneficiaries) • Difference between Jala Nirmal and Non Jala Nirmal GPs in Belgaum and Gulbarga divisions not significant. • Status of IHHLs does not show relationship with populations of the GP, area covered by the GP or number of revenue villages under the GP • ..\Raw Data\BLS Comparisons.xls

  11. Findings – Schools and Anganwadis • 202 schools visited. • one school without girls’ toilet, 6 schools without boys’ toilets • 12 girls toilets and 14 boys’ toilets weren’t being used. • 15 schools did not have water facilities to toilets. • Toilets – students ratio is more than norms. • Less utilization of urinals (both boys and girls). • In many schools, excess infrastructure present, left unused. • 212 anganwadis visited.

  12. Findings – Status of NGP Funds • There is confusion on whether GPs should receive second installment of funds or not. • Some GPs have won the award, but funds not released. • GPs have purchased tractors, conducted felicitation functions, have used the funds to clean up drainages. • GPs have set up plastic bhavans, solid waste disposal units, soak pits, compost units also.

  13. Findings – Community Sanitation facilities and SLWM status • GPs did not have clear idea about area and number of people covered by the CSCs. • Majority of villagers said that the management of CSCs was irregular. • SLWM infrastructure isn’t linked to population or local requirements. • Solid waste disposal mechanisms have to be strengthened. No relationship between drainages and sanitation was found

  14. Comparison between NGP and state and national figures • IHHL Status: % of population not having toilets: • Our sample survey: 26%, BLS: 31% (these two are statistically comparable) • BLS Karnataka average: ~65% • School sanitation is much better, but that’s how it is in the entire nation • Anganwadi sanitation: Slightly better.

  15. Summary of status of sanitation • Status of IHHL • Better performance of NGP awarded GPs, but large regional disparities exist. Reaching the bottom most segment may be difficult. • Some GPs are raising new IHHL requirements through NBA. Raises issues of over-dependability on funds. • School and Anganwadi sanitation • School toilets: infrastructure exists. Utilization is comparatively high as well. GPs have contributed to sanitation. • Anganwadi toilets: Water facilities are lacking. Utilization is comparatively less. GPs have contributed to sanitation. • NGP Fund utilization • In DK and Udupi, expenditures are driven by district administration. However, in other districts, expenditure tracking seems necessary. • Asset planning, management and utilization, rather asset creation has to be emphasized. • Issues of concern • Levels of internalization among GP members and personnel, solid and liquid waste disposal mechanisms, sustainability of current methods of resource extraction

  16. GP Characteristics

  17. GP Characteristics Top Priority issues of visited GPs • Shortage of funds, availability of space, water resources and lack of people‘s participation are the major issues identified by GPs • The level of water extraction through bore-wells had been exceptionally high. Special activities under TSC/NGP

  18. GP Characteristics Patterns in awareness creation programmes Involvement of stakeholders in application process

  19. Status of sustenance • Priorities of GPs • GP activities • Involvement of stakeholders • Resources for sanitation and drinking water • Household characteristics Impact on sanitation outcomes(IHHL status)

  20. GPs with less IHHL status prioritize sanitation more. • However, maintenance of existing sanitation facilities listed by only 25 GPs (23%) – From Shimoga, Udupi and DK • GPs with better IHHL coverage have focused on resource mobilization, Shramadan and Solid waste disposal. • Lesser % of GPs with lower IHHL coverage status have attempted to implement special activities

  21. GP Characteristics • A large % of GPs that went through the application process by themselves did not have good IHHL coverage. • GPs which had stakeholders like NGOs involved in their application process had higher % of IHHL coverage. • Close to half the GPs sampled consider the creation of sanitation infrastructure as a priority task • GPs are fully dependent on government for providing leadership, guidance and financial assistance for creation of sanitation infrastructure • GP level awareness activities are basically driven by district administration and are restricted to meetings, wall writings and street plays. • Low performing GPs feel that their NGP status is not because of their current sanitation status, but because of of intended activities and external pressure

  22. Household characteristics and sanitation outcomes - IHHL

  23. Statistical evidence that sanitation outcomes are related • to socio-economic status and availability of water • to regional disparities • to awareness about GP level activities • to overall sanitation practices (solid waste management and cleanliness)

  24. Field impressions • Some officers have taken strong interest • When the pressure is high, targets met (but not necessarily outcomes), no time provided for internalization • When the priority shifts, the impetus is lost • Long term planning ignored, inefficient expenditure ensues • Scheme accountability lost, impact on behavior change process is lost, results in tokenism and corruption of mindsets • Affects the whole system • Limited capacity to understand and address sustainability • Waste disposal, water extraction, fund utilization, use of local solutions • Both systemic reasons as well as volatile political environment at the GP level (GP as the local benefactor/beneficiary selector)

  25. Recommendations • Addressing regional disparities and social disparities • Cause of concern: Disparities exist in development, but cannot exist in sanitation in NGP GPs at least. • Overall sanitation practices to be prioritized in schools and Anganwadis (considering the long term impacts) • Streamlining SLWM expenditures • Clarity in NGP fund allocation and expenditure patterns • Long term approaches for sanitation: • Communitization and decentralization processes to be sustained • Involvement of multiple stakeholders (rather than one implementation agency) • Holistic set of activities and not just construction of IHHLs • Local innovations in IEC and implementation

  26. Thank you

More Related