Monitoring Case Study
Case Study: Water for All
The following case study is intended to serve as a guide to help you think through the
monitoring plan and the methods you might wish to use in your project.
Instructions:
 Read the following case study in the two parts indicated and discuss some of the
questions listed at the end of each section.
Note: All names and places are fictitious.
Part 1
Water for All is a not-for-profit humanitarian organization committed to household water
treatment projects in several areas of Honduras.. The organization is responding to the
needs of the poor by improving their water quality through the use of the biosand filter.
Water for All designed their project to provide biosand filters to the surrounding
communities along with an education program focused on operation and maintenance of
the filters along with basic knowledge of water use, safe water storage, hygiene and
sanitation. Water for All has 2 filter technicians, 1 Community Health Coordinator, and 3
Community Health Promoters and receives ongoing technical support from CAWST. To
date, Water for All has installed 500 filters and is looking to expand their services to
more rural communities.
Filters for the project are constructed at a central location and transported to users in
surrounding communities after they had attended a workshop and requested a filter
filters. No production records of the filter construction or delivery records were kept and
no visits to households after installation were carried out.
Many months later Water for All began receiving complaints from a number of users
whose filters developed problems. Some of these filter problems were due to a
manufacturing error, some due to installation errors and some due to users’ incorrect
operation and maintenance. When Water for All investigated further they discovered that
many communities had similar problems and decided to visit all the filters they had
installed to check filters were correctly functioning and to replace those with the
manufacturing fault. Unfortunately this exercise proved very difficult since they neither
had records of exactly how many filters they had constructed nor where they had
delivered them.
Discussion
 What are the main problems faced by Water for All?
 What you think that Water for All could have done to improve their project?
NOTE TO FACILITATOR –A brainstorming session might bring out many of the items
which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Part 2
April 2009
1
Monitoring Case Study
As a result of this experience, Water for All carried out a thorough review of their project.
The reviews involved researching baseline health conditions and water quality, the
security situation and talking to communities and their leaders to assess how the project
met their needs. After the analysis of this review, and with the support of CAWST, Water
for All made major changes to their project which included the addition of a
comprehensive monitoring system.
One of the main strengths of the programme and its monitoring system is that it engages
the communities and allows them to play a significant role in both the implementation
and monitoring. Two local citizens are selected in each community to train and act as
community health promoters, encouraging their neighbours to improve their hygiene
behaviours, correctly maintain their filters and provide support in case of problems.
Using prepared checklists, the community health promoters routinely follow-up with the
end users and complete monitoring forms to record their findings.
The major elements of the monitoring system are:
Production record keeping and review
Water for All use a numbering system, painted on each individual filter, to allow them to
follow it from production to installation and beyond. Each filter is constructed and
inspected by the manufacturing technician using a prepared checklist. The checklist
includes checks on material quantities and methods and well as checks on the finished
filter for cracks and adequate flow of water through the tube. Completion of these checks
is recorded in a monitoring form alongside the date of manufacture and the technician
who produced the filter. These records are reviewed by the project manager every 3
month to ensure they are complete and accurate.
Records are also kept for material stocks. These record deliveries of materials to the
workshop and the quantities used to produce each batch of filters and their associated
components. These records are used by technicians to order new materials and are
reviewed by the project manager every 3 month to ensure they are complete and
accurate.
A record of all the costs for the materials and labour that was used to build the filters is
also kept. The project manager can then calculated the total project costs and the unit
cost for each filter. This is used to determine the price that will be charged to the end
users as well as when preparing proposal to various donors.
Filter Delivery and installation record keeping and review
Records are kept of all filters installed in users’ houses. These records include the name
of the user, date of installation, the person installing, receipt of financial contribution and
a checklist for the correct installation of the filter. These records are reviewed by Water
for All Management every month to ensure they are complete and accurate.
Production and Installation Spot checks
In addition to the regular record keeping the project manager carries out spot checks a
minimum of 4 times a year twice a year of both filter production and filter installation. In
reality he carries out these checks every few weeks.
The spot checks for the filter production include checking the quality and storage of
materials, the availability and condition of tools, the filters are being produced using the
April 2009
2
Monitoring Case Study
correct methodology, the quality of the filters and that record keeping is being done
adequately. The spot check for filter installation follows the same format as the checks
carried out by the installing technician.
Regular follow up visits to users by community health promoters
The key element of the Water for All monitoring program is the visits by community
health promoters to filter users. After installation, community health promoters visit
users’ houses at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 3 years. Using a
checklist the community health promoters check that the filters are functioning properly
and give the opportunity to users to discuss hygiene issues and any problems they have
experienced. The agents record their findings on a prepared form which is collected by
project staff after completion.
Regular follow up visits to community health promoters by project staff
Project staff regularly visit community health promoters to ensure they are active, collect
monitoring forms and address any problems/ training needs. These visits normally
coincide with the monitoring schedule of the community health promoters but are more
frequent where community health promoters need additional support. These visits also
generally involve spot checks of 2-3 of the filters in that community to ensure that the
agent has actually made the visits and to double check that they have correctly
understood how to complete the monitoring forms. The community health promoters are
also encouraged to visit the Water for All office whenever they can.
Problem Log
Every time a problem is found it is entered into a problem log stored at the main office.
Once the problem is solved it is also reported in the log. This allows all staff to know the
problems that are occurring in the field as well as how and when the problem was
solved. It also allows the project manager to ensure problems are being solved and
easily identify the scale of problems that are occurring in the field. The project manager
reviews the log every month and all staff are encouraged to regularly review the
document. The problems and solutions are discussed at the regular meetings of the staff
and with the community health promoters.
The monitoring plan and timeline for the Water for All project is given overleaf.
Discussion
 What monitoring methods were used by Water for All?
 How effective do you think these methods are?
 What other methods could they have used?
 Which of these methods you would like to adopt for your own project?
April 2009
3
Monitoring Case Study
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Performance
questions &
objectives
How many
filters have we
produced
Are the filters
of acceptable
quality
Information
needs and
indicators
Number of
filters/ diffusers
and lids made
95% conform
to quality
control
checklist
Are we using
the correct
quantities of
materials
Conformity to
expected
material usage
How many
filters have we
installed?
Number of
filters installed
Are the filters
correctly
installed?
100% conform
to installation
guidelines
Are users
paying their
contribution?
Are people
correctly using
the filters
Are there any
problems with
the filters?
80% able to
pay financial
contribution
85% conformity
to user
guidelines
Number of
reported
problems
Are the
community
health
promoters
carrying out
their role?
Community
health
promoters
actively
carrying out
their role
April 2009
Data
collection
methods
Technician’s
production
records
Technicians
production
records,
production spot
checks &
problem log
Technicians
production
records and
stock records
Technicians
installation
records
Technicians
installation
records and
spot checks
Technician
installation
records
Sampling and
frequency
Production records,
every time an item is
completed – Reviewed
quarterly
Technicians –
Review by
Project Manager
Production Spot checks
4 times a year
Project Manager
Stock records every
week – Reviewed
Quarterly
Technicians –
Review by
Project Manager
Problems logged when
found – log reviewed
monthly
Technicians –
Review by
Project Manager
Installation records,
every installation –
Reviewed monthly
Installation spot checks
4 times a year
User
monitoring
forms
User monitoring 1 week,
1 month, 3 months, 6
months, 1 year and 3
years
Community
health
promoter spot
checks
Spot checks at
community health
promoter follow up at
similar intervals
Problem log
Responsibility /
Action
Problems logged when
found – log reviewed
monthly
Technicians –
Review by
Project Manager
Project Manager
Community health
promoters –
Review by
community health
promoters /
project manager
Community health
promoters
Community Health
Promoters –
Review by Project
Manager
information
Resources
required
Identify
problems,
reference in
case of
problems
and material
ordering
Checklists,
monitoring
forms, , filing
space, data
input time,
manager’s
time
Identify
problems,
check user
contribution
and
reference in
case of
problems
Checklists,
monitoring
forms, , filing
space, data
input time,
manager’s
time
Technician
training for
completion
of records
Identify
problems,
reference in
case of
problems,
general
project
statistics
Checklists,
monitoring
forms,
community
health
promoter per
diems, filing
space, data
input time,
manager’s
time
Community
health
promoter
training to
carry out
visits and
complete
forms
Use of
4
Training
needs
Technician
training for
completion
of records
Data
management
Transfer to
computer
and file hard
copy.
Summary
given in
monthly
report
Transfer to
computer
and file hard
copy.
Summary
given in
monthly
report
Problems
transferred to
problem log.
File hard
copy.
Summary
given in
monthly
report
Monitoring Case Study
Monitoring and Evaluation Timelines
Month
Installation
Checks
Jan
Review Records
Feb
Review Records
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Mar
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Apr
Review Records
May
Visits to user
Continuous Installation Checks
Continuous production Checks
Production and
Stock Checks
Jun
Visit 1
Month 1
Visit 2
Visit 2
Month 2
Month 3
Visit 3
Visit 3
Month 4
Month 5
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Month 6
Visit 4
Jul
Visits to community
health promoter
Installation
Visit 1
Review Records
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Month
Visit 4
Review Records
Month 7
Aug
Review Records
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Sept
Month 8
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Month 9
Oct
Review Records
Month 10
Nov
Review Records
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Dec
Month 11
Review Records
and Spot Checks
Month 12
Visit 5
April 2009
Visit 5
5