Advances in Research

Financing determines whether urban sanitation services can be expanded, maintained and made accessible to different population groups. This study examined the association between financial models and inclusive urban sanitation service delivery in Nakuru City, Kenya. A descriptive cross-sectional mixed-methods design was used. The study targeted 80 actors involved in sanitation planning, financing, regulation and service delivery through a census approach. Fifty-three questionnaires were completed, supplemented by 11 key informant interviews and a document review. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and regression analysis, while qualitative data were analysed thematically. Financial models recorded an overall mean of 3.236, indicating a mixed financing environment. Credit lines received the strongest assessment, with 84.9% of respondents reporting their use in sanitation financing (M = 4.094). Respondents also reported continued financial allocation to sanitation investment (73.6%; M = 3.981) and substantial private or NGO financing (73.6%; M = 3.793). In contrast, financial inclusion recorded the lowest mean (M = 2.377), followed by financing for low-income households (M = 2.528) and cost recovery (M = 2.642). Financial models were negatively and significantly associated with inclusive urban sanitation service delivery (r = −.597, p < .001). Simple linear regression showed that financial models accounted for 35.6% of the variation in inclusive urban sanitation service delivery (R² = .356). The regression coefficient was negative and statistically significant (B = −.641, β = −.597, t = −5.312, p < .001). Qualitative findings showed continued reliance on partner financing, limited dedicated funding for onsite sanitation, difficulties in tracking financing sources and emerging use of revolving and milestone-based financing arrangements. The study concludes that Nakuru City's sanitation financing challenge is not simply a lack of financing mechanisms, but weak alignment between available finance and the needs of low-income households, sanitation providers and non-sewered sanitation systems. The study recommends clearer sanitation budgeting, targeted pro-poor financing, dedicated support for onsite sanitation, expanded risk-sharing mechanisms and improved financial tracking.