Quality targets & modalities

Agree with partners on response quality targets and monitoring modalities

There is a common agreement among partners that the response should be implemented with the highest quality possible. There is however no consensus on what exactly quality means in the field, and who is really accountable for quality issues. For many contextual reasons (lack of competent staff, security and access issues, lack of materials locally available etc) it can be challenging for aid organizations to reach high quality standards. It is therefore important for the WASH sector to agree on clear achievable quality targets to be respected by all partners in a specific context or phase, thus making quality monitoring and progress measurement possible.

Set up and prioritize quality targets

Each element of the GWC quality assurance system includes itself many components (Do no harm to market, gender, cost efficiency, quality of latrine etc...). In order to apply and monitor response quality, clear targets must be set up for each of these components. It may be challenging to tackle all component and reach all targets at the same time. WASH coordination platform must encourage partners (through the SAG or a specific TWiG) to identify on which quality aspect the response should focus on, and progressively include the others.

Agree with partners on quality monitoring modalities for the response 

Quality monitoring mechanism and frequency should be decided by the SAG. They are context specific. Several possibilities exist: Government-led formal monitoring and evaluation exercise; set-up of a specific Technical Working Group with a specific mandate; peer-to-peer exercises carried out among partners; humanitarian action review organized by the Cluster Lead Agency; external monitoring by 3rd party etc. Any mechanism is suitable as long as it has been agreed by the partners and endorsed by the SAG. It is crucial that the quality monitoring remains a field-based exercise. Regular visits and group discussion with beneficiaries must be organized to monitor the adherence of partners’ programmes to the agreed standards. Partners remain the main actors who can influence program quality, and must be in the front line of quality monitoring using their own internal quality monitoring mechanism (field visits, internal M&E system, feedback and complaints mechanism etc.).  

Guide partners to mainstream quality in their response

The WASH coordination platform can implement several activities to guide partners to mainstream quality in the response:

• Develop Strategic Operational Framework (SOF) including a quality assurance framework chapter;

• Set up and dissemination of technical standards

• Fostering the establishment of feedback and complaints mechanism by partners

When relevant, a specific Technical Working Group on quality can be set up

Follow up the implementation of agreed quality monitoring modalities

WASH coordination platform ensures quality assurance system is rolled out as planned, and proposes corrective actions agreed with all partners. Depending on the modalities agreed with partners, this follow-up could consist for instance in making sure each partner has taken steps to use a Feedback and Complaints Mechanism in their program, or that an organization specialized in monitoring implements regular partners program evaluation visits. Any system dysfunction should be discussed with relevant entity.  

Self-reported indicators of service-level quality can be also derived from a 5W matrix. For instance, it is possible for an IMO to extract from a W-matrix whether the beneficiaries reported by a partner comply with some quality standard chosen for the response (number of person per water point built, quantity of water trucked daily to a camp, number of person per latrine built and so on). However, this quality monitoring is considered an inadequate measure if taken alone, and other field-oriented tools must be used by coordination team to triangulate the information.