A SCORECARD FOR MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE

OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN THE

STATE OF MADHYA- PRADESH, INDIA
AMIT VISHWAKARMA

Abstract:
The present study shows the performance scores 8Wastewater management
utilities of urban cities in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. The Scorecard
methodology involves assigning weights to indicators in conjunction with their
scores on devised scale, and evaluates cluster performance score by employing
a spreadsheet.

Key Words:
INTRODUCTION
METHDOLOGY
Solid Waste Management:- Performance related to reach and access,
effectiveness of network operations and environmental sustainability has been
considered, apart from financial sustainability of operations, eight indicators
have been selected under this service..
 Table No.1

Performance Indicator
Sr. Indicator Unit Definition
No.
1. Household level coverage of SWM services Percentage of households and establishments that are covered by daily door-step collection
through door-to-door collection of waste % system.

2. Efficiency of collection of municipal solid Total waste collected by ULB and authorized service providers versus the total waste
waste generated within the ULB excluding recycling or processing at the generation point.
% [Typically, some amount of waste generated is either recycled or reused by the citizen itself.
This quantity is excluded from the total quantity generated, as reliable estimates will not be
available for these.]
3. Extent of segregation of municipal solid % of households and establishments that segregate their waste. Segregation should be atleast
waste separation of wet and dry waste at the source, i.e. at household or establishment level. Ideally,
the separation should be in following categories: bio-degradeable waste, waste that is non-
biodegradeable, and hazardous domestic waste such as batteries, etc. In line with this
description, the ULB may further refine the criteria for classifying waste as being
% "segregated".

It is important that waste segregated at source, is not again mixed, but transported
through the entire chain in a segregated manner. It is therefore important that this
indicator is based on measurement of waste arriving in segregated manner at the
treatment / disposal site, rather than measuring the same at collection point.
4. Extent of municipal solid waste recovered This is an indication of the quantum of waste collected, which is either recycled or processed.
% This is expressed in terms of % of waste collected.

5. Extent of scientific disposal of municipal Amount of waste that is disposed in landfills that have been designed, built, operated and
solid waste maintained as per standards laid down by Central agencies. This extent of compliance should
% be expressed as percentage of total quantum of waste disposed at landfill sites, including open
dump sites.
6. Extent of cost recovery in swm services This indicator denotes the extent to which the ULB is able to recover all operating
% expenses relating to SWM services from operating revenues of sources related
exclusively to SWM.
 This indicator is defined as --> Total annual operating revenues from solid waste
management/Total annual operating expenses on solid waste management, expressed in %
terms.
7. Efficiency in redressal of customer Total number of SWM related complaints redressed within 24 hours of receipt of
complaints % complaint, as a percentage of the total number of SWM related complaints received in the
given time period
8. Efficiency in collection of swm charges Efficiency in collection is defined as - Current year revenues collected, expressed as a
% percentage of the Total operating revenues, for the corresponding time period.
Table No. 2

Comparative Status of Solid Waste Management Services

Household Efficiency Efficiency
Extent of Extent of Extent of Efficiency
level of Extent of in
segregation scientific cost in
coverage of collection municipal redressal
of disposal of recovery collection
solid waste of solid waste of
municipal municipal in SWM of SWM
management municipal recovered customer
solid waste solid waste services charges
services solid waste complaints
Benchmark 100 100 100 80 100 80 100 90
AGRA 0 88 26 25 0 50 0 0
Allahabad 20 71 0 0 0 73 0 0
Kanpur 40 72 43 77 80 54 NA 7
Bareily 0 88.8 0 0 0 41.9 0 0
Jhansi 53.6 77.3 0 0 0 NA 0 0
Moradabad 35.4 63.7 46 3.3 0 83.3 0 0
Gorakhpur 4.6 100 0 0 0 80 0.6 33.8
Meerut 0 100 0 0 0 93.3 0 0
Aligarh 0 100 0 0 0 87.3 0 0
Varanasi 27.3 85.8 0 0 0 66 0.3 41.3
Lucknow 21 96 0 0.6 0 92 0 0
Saharanpur 7 84 0 0 0 94 0 0
Ghaziabad 0 95 0 0 0 91 0 0
RESULTS
Picture 1

Picture 2
Picture 3

Picture 4
Picture 5

Picture 6
DISCUSSION:-
Table NO.1:- As it’s shown in table no.1 that a effective and major treatment
has given through solid waste management to all the above, like door-to- door
collection and municipal solid waste etc. Samples were collected from door- to-
door and municipal solid waste.

A very major few indicator has been used in that treatment. In above
(table no.1) there are performance indicator has been used in that household
level coverage of SWM services through door-to-door collection of waste and
Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste

Table No. 2:- As it’s shown in table no.2 household level coverage of SWM
Services carried in all districts. But the maximum worked was carried in
Jhansi (53.6) and the lowest worked was carried out in Gorakhpur (4.6)
respectively.

Picture 1 :- As its shown in picture 1 that higher status on shown the most
household level coverage through the SWM services in the districts Jhansi (53.6%)
in higher range (2010-11) respectively. And the lowest area covered by the SWM
in Gorakhpur (4.6) respectively

Picture 2:- As its shown in picture 2 the effectively of collection of municipal solid
waste was mostly carried out in Gorakhpur, Meerut, Aligarh in higher range (100%)
lowest range in Moradabad (63.7) respectively.

Picture 3 :- As its shown in picture 3 the most extent of segregation of municipal

solid waste in higher range in Moradabad (46%) and lowest range in Agra (26%).
But respectively it didn’t carried out in the most cities.

Picture 4 :- :- As its shown in picture 4 the most extent of municipal solid waste
recovered in higher range in Kanpur (77%) lowest range in Lucknow (0.6%)
respectively.

Picture 5 :- As its shown in picture 5 the most efficiency in redressal of customer

complaints in higher range in Saharanpur (94%) and lowest range in Bareily
(41.9%) respectively.
Picture 6 :- As its shown in picture 6 the most efficiency in collection of SWM
charges highest range in Varanasi (41.3%) and lowest range Kanpur (7%)
respectively.

CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
1. Asian Development Bank, “Benchmarking and Data Book of Water Utilities in India”,
2007, p.3.
2. Central Public Health Environmental Engineering Manual, “A Manual on Water Supply
System”, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 1999.
3. Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs), 2010.
4. World Bank, http//www.worldbank.org.in, 2010.
5. USAID, Managing Municipal Services Delivery, 2006 pg.3-4.
6. Adam, Everett E. Jr., James C. Herschauer, William A. Ruch. 1981. Developing Quality
Productivity Ratios for Public Sector Personnel Services. Public Productivity Review 5(2):
45– 61.
7. Ammons, David N., ed. 1995. Accountability for Performance: Measurement and
Monitoring in Local Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management
Association.
8. 1999. A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking. Public Administration Review 59(2): 105–
09.
9. 2001. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community
Standards. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Ammons, David N., Charles Coe, and Michael Lombardo. 2001. Performance-
Comparison Projects in Local Government: Participants’ Perspectives. Public Administration
Review 61(1): 100–115.
11. Berman, Evan M. 1998. Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations: Strategies
and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Berman, Evan M., and XiaoHu Wang. 2000. Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties:
Capacity for Reform. Public Administration Review 60(5): 409–20.
13. Brudney, Jeffery. 1990. Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector: Planning,
Initiating, and Managing Voluntary Activities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. Brudney, Jeffery, and Robert E. England. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Coproduction
Concept. Public Administration Review 43(1): 59–65.
15. Coe, Charles. 1999. Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Efforts.
Public Administration Review 59(2):110–23.
16. Cohen, Steven, and William Eimicke. 1998. Tools for Innovators: Creative Strategies for
Managing Public Sector Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17. de Lancer Julnes, Patria, and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting Utilization of Performance
Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and
Implementation. Public Administration Review 61(6): 693–708.
18. De Young, Raymond. 1986. Some Psychological Aspects of Recycling: The Structure of
Conservation Satisfactions. Environment and Behavior 18(4): 435–86.
19. 1993. Changing Behavior and Making It Stick: The Conceptualization and Management
of Conservation Behavior. Environment and Behavior 25(4):485–505.
20. Epstein, Paul D. 1992. Get Ready: The Time for Performance Measurement Is Coming.
Public Administration Review 52(5): 513–19.
21. Feiock, Richard C., and Jonathan P. West. 1996. Municipal Recycling: An Assessment of
Programmatic and Contextual Factors Affecting Program Success. International Journal of
Public Administration 19(7): 1065–85.
22. Folz, David H. 1991. Recycling Program Design, Management, and Participation: A
National Survey of Municipal Experience. Public Administration Review 51(3): 222–31.
23. 1999a. Municipal Recycling Performance: A Public Sector Environmental Success Story.
Public Administration Review 59(4): 336–45.
24. 1999b. Recycling Policy and Performance: Trends in Participation, Diversion, and Costs.
Public Works Management and Policy 4(2): 131–42.
25. Folz, David H., and Jacqueline Giles. 2002. Municipal Experience with Pay as You
Throw Policies: Findings from a National Survey. State and Local Government Review
34(2): 105–15.
26. Folz, David H., and Joseph M. Hazlett. 1991. Public Participation and Recycling
Performance: Explaining Program Success. Public Administration Review 51(6): 526–32.
27. Halachmi, Arie, ed. 1999. Performance and Quality Measurement in Government. Burke,
VA: Chateline Press.
28. Hatry, Harry P. 1978. The Status of Productivity Management in the Public Sector. Public
Administration Review 38(1): 28– 33.
29. 1999. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Press.
30. Hatry, Harry P., Louis P. Blair, Donald M. Fisk, John M. Greiner, John R. Hall, and
Phillip S. Schaenman. 1977. How Effective Are Your Community Services: Procedures for
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Municipal Services. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
31. 1992. How Effective Are Your Community Services: Procedures for Measuring Their
Quality. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
32. Hyde, Albert C. 1995. Quality, Reengineering, and Performance: Managing Change in
the Public Sector. In The Enduring Challenges in Public Management: Surviving and
Excelling in a Changing World, edited by Arie Halachmi and Geert Bouckaert, 150–76. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33. Keehley, Patricia, Steven Medlin, Laura Longmire, and Sue A. MacBride. 1997.
Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector: Achieving Performance Breakthroughs
in Federal,State, and Local Agencies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34. Kopczynski, Mary, and Michael Lombardo. 1999. Comparative Performance
Measurement: Insight and Lessons Learned From a Consortium Effort. Public Administration
Review 59(2): 124–34.
35. Morely, Elaine, Scott P. Bryant, and Harry P. Hatry. 2001. Comparative Performance
Measurement. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
36. Poister, Theodore H., and Richard H. Harris, Jr. 2000. Building Quality Improvement
over the Long Run: Approaches, Results, and Lessons Learned from the PennDOT
Experience. Public Performance and Management Review 24(2): 161– 76.
37. Poister, Theodore H., and Gary T. Henry. 1994. Citizen Ratingsof Public and Private
Service Quality: A Comparative Perspective. Public Administration Review 54(2): 155–59.
38. Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. 1999. Performance Measurement in Municipal
Government: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325–
35.
39. Rivenbark, William. 2000a. Benchmarking and Cost Accounting: The North Carolina
Approach. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management 12(2): 125–
37.
40. 2000b. The Role of Capital Cost in Performance Measurement and Benchmarking. Public
Performance and Management Review 24(1): 22–29.
41. Simonsen, William, and Mark D. Robbins. 2000. Citizen Participation in Resource
Allocation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
42. Vining, Joanne, and Angela Ebreo. 1990. What Makes a Recycler? Environment and
Behavior 22(1): 55–73.
43. Wholey, Joseph S., and Harry P. Hatry. 1992. The Case for Performance Monitoring.
Public Administration Review 52(6): 604–10.
44. Wholey, Joseph S., and Kathryn Newcomer. 1989. Improving Government Performance.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.