Skip to main content

In-depth analysis of the performance of the whole Service Delivery Model for point water sources in Uganda.

TitlePerformance of rural water service providers and service authorities in eight districts in Uganda
Publication TypeBriefing Note
Year of Publication2014
AuthorsBey, V
Secondary TitleTriple-S policy brief
Pagination12 p. : 2 boxes, 8 fig.
Date Published04-2014

In Uganda, most communal water facilities in rural areas are managed by Water Source Committees (WSCs) for point sources (boreholes, shallow wells and protected springs) and Water Supply and Sanitation Boards (WSSBs) for piped schemes. They are the water service providers, i.e. entities that manage and deliver water services, taking care of the operation, maintenance and administration of the systems under their responsibility. Service providers are to receive support from the local service authority, which is the body that has a legal responsibility for guaranteeing a water service in the area, i.e. the districts and sub-counties.

The performance of service providers can have impact on the quality of the service delivered to the water users. For this reason, one of the national Golden Indicators ("Management") tracks the percentage of water points with actively functioning WSCs / WSSBs. A significant proportion of service providers are not functioning well, hence not performing their duties as they should.

In order to obtain more details on the nature and extent of common issues associated with community management of rural water facilities, IRC/Triple-S Uganda conducted an in-depth analysis of the performance of the whole Service Delivery Model for point sources. Data on the performance of rural water service providers and service authorities was collected and analysed.

Findings of this study reinforces that community-based management of rural water points as currently practiced has limitations. WSCs often manage services on a voluntary basis with hardly any motivation, and they often lack the support required for them to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively.

Three areas were identified as critical gaps at service authority level:

  1. There is an institutional gap at sub-county level for the provision of rural water services, with no decentralized office of the water department there
  2. Lack of resources at both sub-county and district levels to ensure the effective fulfillment of the service authority function
  3. The coordination between stakeholders at sub-county and district levels should be improved

Includes 4 ref.

Citation Key77306




The copyright of the documents on this site remains with the original publishers. The documents may therefore not be redistributed commercially without the permission of the original publishers.

Back to
the top