Table 2.
Outcome and impact indicators (all are site-level, except policy indicators, which are country-level). For each indicator, data availability (at both baseline and follow-up), data quality, and suggestions for revising the impact assessment framework are reported. On the basis of these recommendations and other inputs, WHO will publish a separate document detailing revised indicators and associated data collection guidance.
| Code | Indicator | Data Format | Availability (% of Sites) 5 | Data Quality | Category 6 | Comments on Suggested Revisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O | Operational Outcomes | |||||
| O1a | Infrastructure change as a result of WSP 1 | Y/N, description | 95 | Good | A | Retain |
| O1b | Level of operations and management practices | Score of 8–40 (score of 1–5 each) | 93 | Good | ||
| (1) Operational monitoring plan | A | Retain | ||||
| (2) Compliance monitoring plan | A | Retain | ||||
| (3) Consumer satisfaction monitoring | D | Exclude because redundant with W3b | ||||
| (4) Standard operating procedures | A | Retain | ||||
| (5) Emergency response plan | A | Retain | ||||
| (6) Operator or caretaker training programs | A | Retain | ||||
| (7) Consumer education programs | D | Exclude because redundant with I1c | ||||
| (8) Equipment maintenance/calibration schedules | C | Reconsider including as addressing such maintenance schedules is not emphasized in the WSP process | ||||
| F | Financial Outcomes | |||||
| F1a | Operating costs per unit water 2 | $/m3 | 72 | Poor | D | Exclude to simplify; revenue to cost ratio will suffice |
| F1b | Operating costs per population 2 | $/pop | 71 | Poor | D | Exclude to simplify; revenue to cost ratio will suffice |
| F2a | Revenue per population 2 | $/pop | 71 | Poor | D | Exclude to simplify; revenue to cost ratio will suffice |
| F2b | Revenue to cost ratio 2 | % | 66 | Poor | B | Retain but provide a step-by-step calculation guide to avoid mistakes and standardize the definitions of operating costs and revenue |
| F3a | Financial support as a direct result of WSP 1 | Y/N, description | 89 | Good | A | Retain |
| F3b | Funds from government for water supply | $/description | 59 | Poor | B | Retain but combine with indicator F3a and provide more guidance to clarify indicator and to improve reliability of data |
| I | Institutional Outcomes | |||||
| I1a | Internal water safety meetings 2 | Number | 92 | Good | A | Retain |
| I1b | External water safety meetings 2 | Number | 92 | Good | A | Retain |
| I1c | Consumer water safety trainings 2 | Number | 85 | Good | A | Retain |
| I2a | Understanding of system 3 | Score of 5–25 | 19 | Poor | C | Reconsider including due to lack of meaningful measurements (unless a more effective and systematic measurement approach can be designed) |
| I2b | Understanding of hazards 3 | Number | 19 | Poor | C | |
| E | Equity Outcomes | |||||
| E1a | Equity 4 | Score of 6–30 (score of 1–5 each) | 88 | Poor | C | Reconsider including due to widespread misinterpretation until explicit consideration of equity through the WSP process is widely promoted |
| (1) Participation | ||||||
| (2) Groups identified and documented | ||||||
| (3) Hazards/issues prioritized | ||||||
| (4) Improvements benefit equitably | ||||||
| (5) Monitoring data disaggregated | ||||||
| (6) Emergency response and communication programs reflect needs | ||||||
| W | Water Supply Impact | |||||
| W1a | Continuity | Hours/week | 93 | Good | B | Retain but consider refining guidance to avoid rough estimates of continuity |
| W1b | Service coverage | % | 76 | Good | C | Reconsider including as expanding service coverage is often not a core priority or key outcome of WSPs |
| W1c | Pressure | atm/bar/m | 22 | Poor | C | Reconsider including due to data quality concerns (variable measurement methods and tendency to provide rough estimates) |
| W1d | Unaccounted-for Water (UFW) | % | 30 | Good | B | Retain but revise guidance to better distinguish between UFW and non-revenue water (NRW) |
| W2a | Microbial tests 2 | Number | 89 | Good | A | Retain |
| W2b | Microbial compliance 2 | % | 60 | Good | A | Retain |
| W2c | Turbidity tests 2 | Number | 87 | Good | A | Retain |
| W2d | Turbidity compliance 2 | % | 37 | Good | A | Retain |
| W2e | Disinfectant residual tests 2 | Number | 74 | Good | A | Retain |
| W2f | Disinfectant compliance 2 | % | 21 | Good | A | Retain |
| W2g | Other water quality parameter compliance 2 | %, description | 0 | Poor | B | Retain but standardize list of parameters and formatting |
| W3a | Consumer satisfaction surveys conducted | Y/N | 92 | Good | A | Retain |
| W3b | Consumers satisfied 2 | % | 10 | Good | B | Retain but consider recommending a household survey where suppliers do not have standardized data |
| W3c | Consumer complaint records kept | Y/N | 92 | Good | A | Retain |
| W3d | Number of consumer complaints 2 | % | 22 | Poor | B | Retain but standardize reporting |
| H | Health Impact | |||||
| H1a | Cases of diarrhea 2 | Number | 43 | Poor | B | Retain but revise guidance to highlight/address common discrepancies between health center and WSP coverage areas |
| H1b | Other water-related illnesses 2 | Number | 31 | Poor | B | Retain but revise guidance to highlight/address common discrepancies between health center and WSP coverage areas and combine with indicator H1a |
| H1c | Diarrheal incidence 2 | % | 5 | Poor | B | Retain but change to primary household data collection rather than review of existing household data available |
| P | Policy Outcomes | |||||
| P1a | Proactive water quality risk management approaches are/were included in formal water sector policies or regulations at time of follow-up assessment | Y/N, description | 92 | Poor | B | Retain but provide a standardized definition of risk management |
| P1b | Activity to develop or revise national drinking water quality standards has been undertaken | Y/N, description | 92 | Poor | D | Exclude because difficult to obtain information in a standardized and meaningful way and link to WSP implementation |
| P2a | Proactive water quality risk management approaches have been adopted by other water-sector stakeholders (e.g., NGOs, UNICEF) | Y/N, description | 83 | Poor | D | Exclude because difficult to obtain information in a standardized and meaningful way |
| P2b | Proactive water quality risk management approaches are promoted in national or sub-national programs | Y/N, description | 83 | Poor | C | Reconsider including this indicator reflects drivers of WSPs as opposed to outcomes |
1 Only asked at follow-up; 2 cumulative value over the 12-month period before data collection; 3 only asked if baseline data collection was prospective; 4 all elements refer to women and/or disadvantaged groups; 5 except for Policy Outcomes, where the unit is “% of countries”; 6 suggestions regarding each indicator fall into four categories: A. Retain without changes. Indicators are important and reliable data were easily collected; B. Retain but modify to standardize answers and avoid calculation mistakes. Indicators are important but were associated with data quality and/or availability challenges that can be easily overcome; C. Retention requires further consideration. Indicators were associated with significant data quality and/or availability challenges that may be difficult to overcome (except at higher capacity sites). If retained, modifications will be needed; D. Do not retain. Indicators are not core to the WSP process, are redundant and/or are not sufficiently important to warrant addressing data quality and/or availability challenges experienced.