Issuance Date 19 August 2011 Contract Number AID-617-C-10 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

District Training and Support of WUCs WUC Evaluation – Preliminary Results 2011 Field Findings The level of operation for WUCs that had received some form of district training was used to determine the level of training provided by each district. District Table 4: District Level of Training Provided Level of Training Provided Avg. Number of Days Trained Training Coverage of Sampled WUCs Kitgum 2 2 100% Oyam 1 0.02 (30 min) 50% Amuru 2 2 100% Gulu 2 1.30 56% Time spent on trainings was generally below the timeframe specified by the GOU (three days to allow for sufficient coverage of material) which may contribute to the fact that no districts are providing Level 3 training. Kitgum Both sites visited had been trained by the district and were found to be operating within Level 2. According to district records and interviews with district officials, however, four of the six NUDEIL sites have not been trained. Assistant District Water Officer Charles Oyema and Focal Person Peter Abale both stated that there were no available funds to complete these trainings due to complications with a dry well site. Kitgum is the only district to provide a means for practical maintenance (training a pump mechanic in each community). The level 2 training assignment was given primarily because the communities visited did not have a clear understanding of how to request assistance from the District. It should be noted that questions regarding whether an O&M plan has been created or a budget formulated were not asked during these pilot discussions (they were incorporated later in the evaluation). Oyam Interestingly, the one site (Opangul) operating within Level 2 has received no formal training from the District or elsewhere. An explanation of the level of operation could be attributed to a general familiarity with water points gained from living within IDP camps. In general, Oyam exhibits the poorest level of training primarily because no formal trainings have taken place not considering the 30 minute training by the Health Assistants. 8
WUC Evaluation – Preliminary Results 2011 Amuru All of the sites visited within Amuru have received enough training from the district to operate at Level 2 with the exception of Kweyo. Members of this community have a basic understanding of sanitation and hygiene but have not yet started collecting contributions or formed any by-laws. They also expressed concern that they were not trained adequately stating that an assistant to the Health Assistant trained them for one day only. Gulu Of the 5 sites that received training from the district: 4 are operating at Level 2, 1 (Te-Ojar) is operating at Level 1. No community contributions are being collected in Te-Ojar and very little ownership of the water point is exhibited (the community referred to the borehole as both belonging to NUDEIL and the responsibility of NUDEIL). Members of Te-Ojar complain that the water takes too long to pump and that they prefer to go to a borehole 5 km away. The lack of ownership and perceived need for the borehole may be contributing to the low level of operation. Of the 4 sites that did not receive training from the district: 3 are operating at Level 2, 1 (Te- Aceng) is operating at Level 1. Community contributions in Te-Aceng have not yet started. Members of the originally formed WUC were recently married and had moved away. Therefore, the community was waiting for the following month to begin collections with the newly elected members. It should be noted that all 4 WUCs with no district training claimed to have received training while living within the IDP camps or from an NGO. In general, it seems that the level of training provided by the District of Gulu is sufficient for Level 2 operation. However, it is unclear whether it is a coincidence that each of the sites that had not been trained by the district had received training from elsewhere or if the district knew of this training and consequently did not perform any of its own. Interviews Sixteen district officials were interviewed (see Appendix E). Typical questions that were asked can be found in Appendix A. Transportation and staffing were general challenges faced by each district. Motivation was another common challenge brought forth. Many officials linked the lack of community motivation to the culture developed in the IDP camps. Highlights of other main challenges and some of the suggestions provided by officials are summarized by district in the tables below. 9
Page 1 and 2: Issuance Date 19 August 2011 Contra
Page 3 and 4: WUC Evaluation - Preliminary Result
Page 7 and 8: Introduction WUC Evaluation - Preli
Page 9 and 10: Limitations WUC Evaluation - Prelim
Page 11: WUC Evaluation - Preliminary Result
Page 17 and 18: Gulu WUC Evaluation - Preliminary R
Page 25 and 26: WUC/Community Group Discussion Ques
Page 27 and 28: Appendix B: Sample Interview Questi
Page 29 and 30: District Officials District Water O
Page 31 and 32: Appendix C: District Records versus
Page 33 and 34: Water User Committee Evaluation - D
Page 35 and 36: 245361 418135 393135 368135 343135
Page 37 and 38: Water User Committee Evaluation - L
Page 39 and 40: Water User Committee Evaluation - I
Page 41 and 42: ClearWater Initiative Interview - A
Page 43 and 44: o It’s up to the community to cho
Page 45: List of Pump Parts and Maintenance

Issuance Date 19 August 2011 Contract Number AID-617-C-10 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?