Presentation on theme: "Experiential learning from Total Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing(TSSM) Project, 2007-10 on Monitoring Progress and Program performance, and Sequencing."— Presentation transcript:
Experiential learning from Total Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing(TSSM) Project, 2007-10 on Monitoring Progress and Program performance, and Sequencing of CLTS and Sanitation Marketing Nilanjana Mukherjee with inputs from Amin Robiarto IDS Workshop on Monitoring CLTS. Malawi. August 2012
Experience from 29 districts in East Java during Scaling Up Rural Sanitation showed: Communities are able to monitor access to improved sanitation, and progress towards ODF achievement, in ways that satisfy JMP monitoring requirements. Key pre-condition – Establish and use locally relevant, commonly agreed definitions for Improved/unimproved sanitation and criteria for ODF status, which are easy to understand and communicate in local language.
Examples of maps E. Java communities make and use for monitoring - households color coded by sanitation practice ( open defecators, sharers, users of improved/unimproved latrines)
Data picked up from community maps/registers by Health Extension worker – recorded in Primary Health Center format But, Manual pick up and transfer of data to district often late. When triggered communities ran into hundreds and thousands, manual monitoring data collection systems failed to keep up.
Data Input Data Base Distance DATA SOURCE Data more accurate Quick data transfer Resource-efficient Possible solution - Cell phone text message- based reporting introduced in 2010 WSP-developed software installed in district Health Office computer gateway. Auto-checks for validity of data received via text messages. Only from phones registered with the gateway.
# community households reported via phone text message every month. - Baseline report – one time - Monthly updates thereafter Improved - Permanent Improved-semi- permanent Sharing/unimprovedOpen Defecator 21131041 Improved - Permanent Improved-semi- permanent Sharing/unimprovedOpen defecator 05175
ODF Verification guidelines provided- For use by sub-district agencies/Puskesmas Guidelines include: Definitions – Improved/Unimproved sanitation, ODF. Recommended community-level process Recommended composition of Verification team Checklist for household latrine observation Checklist for environmental observation
Open Defecation Free Certificate presented to verified ODF community by District Government
Using monitoring data to improve program efficiency within districts District government have used it for: Identifying bottlenecks, high/low performing sub- districts Comparing outputs and outcomes from different program approaches (e.g.CLTS vs. other approaches) Advocacy with district legislatures for budget allocation for rural sanitation
Using monitoring data to improve program efficiency in province Province and national governments have used it for: Comparing program performance across districts Generating competition among districts – linking program outcomes to award ( annual Good Governance evaluation by JPIP Media Foundation) Annual Stakeholder Learning Reviews – publicizing cross-district performance data, generating learning analysis by district government personnel- sparking mutual support/sharing of knowledge and expertise from one district to others.
FINANCING: Local government budget for sanitation DEMAND CREATION: number of triggered communityies SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT: number of masons trained per sub-district which provide “WC-ku Sehat” SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT: number of “WC-ku Sehat” vendor per sub- district OUTCOME: Number of ODF commuities OUTCOME: % Access increas to Improved latrine OUTCOME: Community investment per 1 million program investment OUTCOME: Program investment by ODF Communities OUTCOME: Access increased per 1 million Investment 5 5 15 10 FINANCING: % Local government sanitation budget For non-construction category 22
3. Sequencing CLTS and Sanitation marketing interventions
What we learned about sequencing CLTS and Sanitation Marketing in rural sanitation programs at scale It is critically important to invest in market research BEFORE creating demand (e.g.with CLTS and Behavior Change Communication) at large scale, because: Market research findings identify how best to move forward in scaling up so as to maximize program impact. Market research findings prevent funds being mis-allocated and wasted at scale. Sanitation marketing interventions at scale need 12-18 months’ preparation time. Start market research as early as possible in new projects. Lesson learned from TSSM implementation experience and research on Factors associated with achieving and sustaining ODF communities (WSP, 2011) See following examples…………
Labor + 0 cost Rp.300,000 – 500,000 Rp.1 – 1.5 million Rp.2-4 million Middle income households Rp.50,000– 300,0000 WHO IS BUILDING WHAT- AT WHAT COST IN EAST JAVA 2008-2010. (WSP,2011) WHO IS BUILDING WHAT- AT WHAT COST IN EAST JAVA 2008-2010. (WSP,2011) Rich Households OD Poor Households
T1T1 T2T2 T3T3 T4T4 T5T5 Concrete slab and ceramic pan Concrete offset Slab Concrete Slab with a lid Wooden slab with a lid Bamboo clay-lined slab with a lid Missing option - Consumers want T5 technology, but at much lower than T5 cost – WSP Market Research (Nielsen,2009)
Market research finding used by local sanitation entrepreneur to identify and develop missing options desired by consumers. His products are in very high demand
Sumadi’s 1-page promotional flyer ” Informed Choice Catalogue for Affordable and Progressively Upgradable Healthy Latrine”
Post-project action research in 20 districts : TSSM-trained masons found in only 9% sampled communities(all ODF). Rest gone to cities/abroad/ not serving rural consumers. Where trained entrepreneurs are present, they are providing, reduced-cost versions of what consumers want/aspire to, e.g. Pour-flush latrines at Rp.250,000 – 750,000 Offset pit latrines with lids at – Rp.59,000O Providing designs upgradable over next 1-2 years Offering installment payments terms of Rp 20,000 – 50,000 monthly Need to increase numbers of locally resident masons capable of serving poor customers in these ways. (WSP Action research, 2011) Need to intervene at enterpreneur level (higher than masons) for impact at scale (WSP market research, Nielsen, 2009)
TSSM INFORMED CHOICE CATALOGUE–developed as a communication tool for masons to use with customers
But –information tools on options, made available from TSSM, are NOT reaching rural consumers – copies lying in District/PHC offices. Action researchers showed, discussed and left behind the TSSM Informed Choice Catalogue (ICC) in 40 Not ODF communities…. Frequency of responses Never seen before: in 40 of 40 communties Interest expressed in the options: in 21 of 40 communities Action initiated immdtly with local mason to build 1 or more options from ICC : in 11of 40 communities No interest in the Dry pit options: in18 of 40 communities No interest in latrines (river OD-ers): in 4 of 40 communities (WSP, 2011) Recommendation : Make available informed-choice communication tools on market-research-based options in the hands of locally resident masons in communities !!