Development of indicators for measuring outcomes of water safety plans

Abstract

Water safety plans (WSPs) are endorsed by the World Health Organization as the most effective method of protecting a water supply. With the increase in WSPs worldwide, several valuable resources have been developed to assist practitioners in the implementation of WSPs, yet there is still a need for a practical and standardized method of evaluating WSP effectiveness. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a conceptual framework for the evaluation of WSPs, presenting four key outcomes of the WSP process: institutional, operational, financial and policy change. In this paper, we seek to operationalize this conceptual framework by providing a set of simple and practical indicators for assessing WSP outcomes. Using CDC’s WSP framework as a foundation and incorporating various existing performance monitoring indicators for water utilities, we developed a set of approximately 25 indicators of institutional, operational, financial and policy change within the WSP context. These outcome indicators hold great potential for the continued implementation and expansion of WSPs worldwide. Having a defined framework for evaluating a WSP’s effectiveness, along with a set of measurable indicators by which to carry out that evaluation, will help implementers assess key WSP outcomes internally, as well as benchmark their progress against other WSPs in their region and globally.

Assessing operational performance benefits of a Water Safety Plan implemented in Southwestern France

“…third-party customer surveys) that customer or employee complaints do not decline due to perceived inability to communicate with the utility or achieve change. 4 …”

“…This includes changes in customer complaints over time and frequency of key operations, such as inspections. Collecting documentation of streamlined procedures was also recommended, 4 although this may or may not indicate how well or how frequently the planned procedures were later carried out. We overcame this challenge by matching self-reported qualitative performance improvements with quantitative water quality and performance records.…”

“…list of indicators) for tracking gains would help enable scale-up of progress analyses to the company-wide, national, and/or international level. 2,4,5,13,26 Indicators should consider the resource level of the utility and be integrated into the WSP as monitoring and evaluation targets from the onset of development. 25 Quantitative measures should be supplemented by qualitative ‘ground-truthing’ involving local utility staff, as direction change could be indicative of underlying improvements in data tracking or changes to external policies.…”

“…Recommended outcome indicators span four categories: institutional, operational, financial, and policy. 4 WSP evaluation models would benefit from clarification of the relationships among different evaluation indicators and the mechanisms by which determinants (barriers or facilitators) affect outcomes and impacts. 5,6 Furthermore, many jurisdictions lack standardized guidance on recommended WSP performance indicators, which would enable wide-scale comparison.…”

Drinking Water Risk Management Plan: A Case Study in the Ore Processing Industry

“…This contributes to the health protection of workers by fulfilling predetermined HBTs. In addition, quality supervision can provide an indicator of drinking water distribution services, including quality, quantity, accessibility, and continuity of supply [5,29,30]. All employees receive drinking water in several different ways: From pipes with no pumping (due to possible elevation and contour of the land) and delivery by tanker trucks for several shops where it is not possible to supply through pipes.…”