__NOTOC__
Direct support is structured support to service providers and users or user groups related to the operation and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services. Expenditure on direct support is the costs of providing such support.
'''Direct support includes the following types of activitiesactivity:'''
* performance monitoring
* technical advice and information
The costs of support before and during the construction of a water or sanitation system are not included. They are considered to be [[Capital Expenditure (CapEx)|capital expenditure]] support. Most community-based water service providers seek and receive some degree of direct support (Whittington et al., 2009), though often in an ad hoc manner, typically when they encounter a problem.
Direct support is often used synonymously with referred to as institutional support, post-construction support and follow-up support.
====Difference between direct and indirect support====
====Benchmarks expenditure direct support====
Based on research from the [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] project, the minimum expenditure on direct support to provide a basic level of water service (at 2011 prices) ranges from US$ 1 per person to just over US$ 3 per person (see table 2).
'''Table 2. Cost ranges for expenditure on direct support [min-max] in US$ 2011 per person, per yearfor a basic level of service.''' <br>
{|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|-
The costs as shown in table 2 (above) are based on the provision of a basic level of water service, as defined by [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]]. A basic service implies that the following criteria have been realised by the majority of the population in the service area: People access a minimum of 20 litres per person per day, of acceptable quality (judged by user perception and country standards) from an improved source which functions at least 350 days a year without a serious breakdown, spending no more than 30 minutes per day per round trip (including waiting time).
The minimum expenditure on direct support required to provide a basic level of sanitation service ranges from US$ 0.5 to just over US$ 1.5 per person (2011 prices) (see table 3).
'''Table 3. Cost ranges for expenditure on direct support [min-max] in US$ 2011 per person, per yearfor a basic level of service.'''
{|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|-
The costs as shown in table 3 (above) are based on the provision of a basic level of sanitation service, as defined by [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]]. A basic sanitation service implies that all the following criteria have been realised by the majority of the population in the service area: At least some members of the household use a latrine with an impermeable slab at the house, in the compound or shared with neighbours. The latrine is clean even if it may require high user effort for pit emptying and other long term maintenance. The disposal of sludge is safe and the use of the latrine does not result in problematic environmental impact.
When using these benchmarks (see table 2 and 3) local factors must be taken into account. For example, the lower cost ranges were generally, (but not always ) found in India, while cost data from Latin America tends tend to be higher than the maximum ranges, but usually relates relate to higher service levels.
'''For both water and sanitation:'''
* If expenditure is lower than the minimum range, then there is higher risk of reduced service levels or long-term failure. A reduced service level means that one or more service criteria (*) (e.g. access, quantity, use, quality and reliability) are not achieved.
* In [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] research, use of latrines and reliability of services tend to be lower when recurrent expenditure on things such as operation and maintenance is low.
* If expenditure is lower than the minimum range, then there is higher risk of reduced service levels or long-term failure. A reduced service level means that one or more service criteria (e.g. access, quantity, use, quality and reliability) are not achieved. Service criteria can vary according to country context and norms.
* In the [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] research, use of latrines and reliability of services tend to be lower when recurrent expenditure on things such as operation and maintenance is low.
* If expenditure is higher than the maximum range, an affordability check (for both users and providers) might be required to ensure long-term sustainability.
* If a basic level of service is being delivered and expenditure is outside the cost benchmarks, then there may be context-specific explanations; such as the service is in a densely-populated area with economies of scale, or, conversely, the area is difficult or remote to reach.
====Expenditure on direct support in Mozambique between 2008 –2011====In 2008 a new approach for direct support aimed at supporting communities to improve their capacities to manage water supply, hygiene and sanitation conditions, called PEC zonal, was introduced in Mozambique in 18 districts. The PEC Zonal approach entails that a single (non-profit*) organization or consultant is contracted by government Service criteria can vary according to carry out all promotion of participation and education of the community in a district during a whole year (Zita country context and Naafs, 2011). The approach was scaled up country-wide in Mozambique from 2011norms.
The [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] ====Example: expenditure on direct support in Mozambique project examined 94 PEC zonal contracts signed between 2008– 2008 and 2011. Based on Zita ====In 2008, a new approach for direct support aimed at supporting communities to improve their capacities to manage water supply, hygiene and Naafs (2011sanitation conditions, 1) the average cost of called PEC zonal activities is 3,025,000 meticais was introduced in Mozambique in 18 districts. The PEC Zonal approach entails that a single (US$ 103,000non-profit) organization or 33 meticais (US$ 1.10) per person per year. No correlation was found between the cost consultant is contracted by government to carry out all promotion of PEC zonal participation and variables such as district population, size education of the district (km2), population density and water coverage community in a district during a whole year (see figure 2Zita and Naafs, 2011). The height of expenditure on direct support is therefore not directly related to these factorsapproach was scaled up country-wide in Mozambique from 2011.
[[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] Mozambique examined 94 PEC zonal contracts signed between 2008 and 2011. Based on Zita and Naafs (2011, 1) the average cost of PEC zonal activities is 3,025,000 meticais (US$ 103,000) or 33 meticais (US$ 1.10) per person per year.
====Example: expenditure on direct support in Ghana====
Based on [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]]research in Ghana, the average direct support cost of districts ranges from US$ 0.1 to US$ 0.2 per capita per year (Nyarko, 2012). These cost ranges are based on data collected during life cycle cost approach training and budgeting exercises with nine district assemblies and representatives from the Community Water and Sanitation Agency in Ghana (CWSA) and the WASHCost Technical Committee on Direct Support Cost (C-WTCDS). The nine districts are from three regions in Ghana namely Brong Ahafo (BA), Northern region (NR) and Volta region (VR).
Figure 1 below shows the magnitude of ideal direct support cost for three districts. The most significant cost components in direct support in Ghana are training/capacity building, field work and office activities. Please note that the expenditure on direct support excludes salaries of district government staff which are paid outside the district budget by the central government in Ghana. '''Figure 21. Possible Annual direct support cost drivers of the PEC zonal approach per capita per year for districts per region in MozambiqueGhana'''[[Image:Fg 1 ExpDS fg 2.jpg|thumb|none|600px500px|Source: Zita Nyarko, 2012]] Districts from Volta region (VR) have the highest cost dominated by office activities which are mainly cost of vehicles and motor bikes ((Nyarko, 2012). The districts from Brong Ahafo (BA) have the highest cost for training and capacity building with fuel cost as the highest cost component for pick-up vehicles whereas the other districts were using motor bikes. In one of the districts in Brong Ahafo (BA), the district procures spare parts and Naafssupplies to users or user groups. The direct support cost increases to US$ 34,000 when the cost of the spare parts are included (Nyarko, 20112012). The spare parts becomes necessary when districts do not get private business entity or private shops/stores in the locality to serve user groups because sales of parts may not be attractive. The community ownership and management concept does not support the procurement of spare parts by the district assemblies. The smallest cost component is field activities or work with an average around US$ 0.01 per capita per year (Nyarko, 3]]2012). This cost is mainly expenditure on fuel, lubricants, field gadgets and allowance for officers. Districts from the Volta region (VR) have high field activities cost compared to the rest mainly due to high allowance and frequency of visits. Moreover, cost of field activities which covers monitoring and evaluation of WASH facilities, management systems and user groups is the smallest direct cost component from the study.
==Key documents==
* Kayser, G. et al., 2010. Assessing the Impact of Post-Construction Support—The Circuit Rider Model—on System Performance and Sustainability in Community-Managed Water Supply: Evidence from El Salvador. In: Smits, S. et al. (eds.), 2010. Proceedings of an international symposium. Kampala, 13-15 April 2010. The Hague: Thematic Group on Scaling Up Rural Water Services.
* WASHCost, (2012). [http://wwwInformation sheet provides an overview of the minimum benchmarks for costing sustainable basic services in developing countries.washcost.info/page/2386 Providing a basic level of water The benchmarks have been derived from the WASHCost project dataset and sanitation services that last: the best available cost data from other organisations all over the world. The benchmarks]are useful for planning, information sheet 1. IRC International Water assessing sustainability from a cost perspective and Sanitation Centrefor monitoring value for money. [accessed on 3 December 2012]
:Information sheet provides an overview WASHCost, (2012). [http://www.washcost.info/page/2386 Providing a basic level of the minimum benchmarks for costing sustainable basic water and sanitation services in developing countries. The benchmarks have been derived from the WASHCost project dataset and the best available that last: cost data from other organisations all over the world. The benchmarks are useful for planning], assessing sustainability from a cost perspective information sheet 1. IRC International Water and for monitoring value for moneySanitation Centre.[accessed on 3 December 2012]
* Lockwood, H., 2002. Institutional Support Mechanisms for Community-managed Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Systems in Latin America. (Strategic Report 6) WA DC: EHP-Environmental Health Project of the USAID.
* Nyarko, K.B. et al., 2011. [http://www.washcost.info/page/2700 Ideal direct support costs for WASH Services]. (Life-cycle costs in Ghana Briefing Note 12). Accra: WASHCost Ghana. * Nyarko, K.B. et al., 2011. [http://www.washcost.info/page/1441 Post-construction costs of water point-systems]. (Life-cycle costs in Ghana Briefing Note 2). Accra: WASHCost Ghana. :This working paper analyses existing literature on primary cost data from seven countries of providing direct and indirect support to rural water service provision. It provides an overview of the features such support entails, how those features can be organised, what they cost and how they can be financed. It also provides recommendations to countries for strengthening support.
* Smits S., Verhoeven J., Moriarty P., Fonseca F. and Lockwood H., 2011. [http://www.washcost.info/page/1567 Arrangements and cost of providing support to rural water service providers]. WASHCost/Triple-S Working Paper 5. IRC, International Water and Sanitation Centre, November 2011. [Accessed 21 December 2012]
* Smits S., Verhoeven J., Moriarty P., Fonseca F. and Lockwood H., 2011. [http:This working paper analyses existing literature on primary //www.washcost.info/page/1567 Arrangements and cost data from seven countries of providing direct and indirect support to rural water service provisionproviders]. WASHCost/Triple-S Working Paper 5. It provides an overview of the features such support entailsIRC, how those features can be organisedInternational Water and Sanitation Centre, what they cost and how they can be financed. It also provides recommendations to countries for strengthening supportNovember 2011. [Accessed 21 December 2012]
* Smits, S., 2012. Direct support Post-Construction to Rural Water Service Providers. Triple-S Briefing note 6. IRC, International Water and Sanitation Centre. Available: [http://www.waterservicesthatlast.org/Resources/Building-blocks/Direct-support-to-service-providers Direct support to service providers] [Accessed 21 December 2012]
* WASHCost was a five-year action research programme, running from 2008 to 2012. The WASHCost team gathered information related to the costs of providing water, sanitation, and hygiene services for an entire life-cycle of a service - from implementation all the way to post-construction. The WASHCost programme was led by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre with several partners to collect data in the rural and peri-urban areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, and Mozambique. For more information see: [http://www.washcost.info WASHCost]
* The Costing Sustainable Services online course was developed to assist governments, NGOs, donors and individuals to plan and budget for sustainable and equitable WASH services, using a life-cycle cost approach. The Life-cycle cost approach is a methodology for costing sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene service delivery and comparing the costs to the level of service received by users. For more information see: [http://www.washcost.info/page/2448 WASHCost Online Training]
* WASHCost data sets provide access to the validated life-cycle cost and service level information collected in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Andhra Pradesh (India), and Mozambique between 2009 2010. The data has been collated from a number of sources including infrastructure surveys, detailed household surveys and range of specific research undertaken with stakeholders in each country. The data sets are available at [http://www.washcost.info/page/2716 washcost.info/page/2716]
* Triple-S (Sustainable Services at Scale) is a six-year, multi-country learning initiative to improve water supply to the rural poor. It is led by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. The initiative is currently operating in Ghana and Uganda. Lessons learned from work in countries feeds up to the international level where Triple-S is promoting a re-appraisal of how development assistance to the rural water supply sector is designed and implemented. For more information see: [http://www.waterservicesthatlast.org/ Water Services That Last]
