GUIDANCE TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY … · guidance: the key findings are summarised in Box 1. However, in some cases, transition is being made to a wider national and

SUSTAINABILITY CHECKS GUIDANCE TO DESIGN AND

IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING IN WASH

2 | GUIDANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY CHECKSCOVER PHOTO: ©TSVANGIRAYI MUKWAZHI/UNICEF ZIMBABWE

FOREWORDEnsuring lasting impacts of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programme investments is a vital, but complex task, and requires a strategic approach. There is a need not just to invest more in WASH service delivery but also in how those services are delivered, if Sustainable Development Goal 6 and its benefits for communities, children’s survival and development are to be realised. The new Agenda 2030 for sustainable development is universal and ambitious. On water and sanitation, it sets a clear goal for where the world should be at 2030 – measured through access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation.

Over recent years UNICEF has performed sustainability monitoring by implementing over 35 ‘Sustainability Checks’. The checks have been a critical tool that have helped to put the sustainability of WASH services on global and national agendas – and have improved programmes to deliver more sustainable outcomes in WASH. However, the Sustainability Checks have suffered from inconsistency in approaches and metrics, which has hampered the ability to compare sustainability gains or challenges over time, both in and between countries.

This guidance builds on previous experiences of sustainability monitoring and outlines guidance on how to design and implement Sustainability Checks as a means to obtain information about the state of functionality of water facilities as well as the level of adherence to social norms and behaviour change required to stop open defecation and construct toilets. The Sustainability Checks also provide information about underlying factors that are critical to future sustainability of WASH services, with a focus at the community and decentralised service delivery, level. This document aims to help deliver UNICEFs ambition to strengthen national capacity to deliver lasting services, while leaving no one behind.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis framework document was written under the collaboration between UNICEF and the UNDP-SIWI Water Governance Facility through the Accountability for Sustainability programme.

PRODUCED BY:UNICEF HQ Programme Division/ WASH, New York

Cecilia ScharpAngie Saleh Michael Emerson Gnilo

UNDP-SIWI Water Governance Facility, Stockholm Alejandro JiménezHélène LeDeunff

REVIEW, ADVICE AND CONTRIBUTIONS:Dawda Jawara, UNICEF West Africa Regional Office, DakarLizette Burgers, UNICEF HQ Programme Division/ WASH, New YorkBrooke Yamakoshi, UNICEF HQ Programme Division/ WASH, New YorkEvariste Kouassi Komlan, UNICEF HQ Programme Division/ WASH, New YorkJeremie Toubkiss, UNICEF HQ Evaluation Office, New YorkFor Annex 1: Indicators and factors, Stef Smits, IRC, The Netherlands, and Julia Boulenouar, AguaConsult, Essex United Kingdom

VERSION FOR PRINT, JULY 2017.

GUIDANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY CHECKS | 1

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ....................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................2

Sustainability checks in the wider framework for sustainability programming ..... 2

The evolution of Sustainability Checks ..........................................................................................3

SECTION 1: Main characteristics of a Sustainability Check .......................................................4

SECTION 2: Conducting a Sustainability Check ................................................................................5

Design ..............................................................................................................................................................5Defining the scope of the check ..........................................................................................5Setting targets for each indicator .......................................................................................5Samples calculation...................................................................................................................6Data sources and data collection techniques ...............................................................6

Implementation ...........................................................................................................................................7Procurement ..................................................................................................................................7Data collection protocol ..........................................................................................................7Field survey and analysis ........................................................................................................8

Feedback ........................................................................................................................................................8Visualization of results .............................................................................................................8Presenting and discussing findings ...................................................................................8Acting upon findings ..................................................................................................................9

SECTION 3: The way forward: national ownership for Sustainability Checks ..................9

ANNEX 1: List of indicators and factors ............................................................................................ A1

ANNEX 2: Reporting Templates .............................................................................................................. B1

ANNEX 3: Terms of Reference for WASH Sustainability Checks ...........................................C1

2 | GUIDANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY CHECKS

PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT A Sustainability Check is a study to assess the sustainability of WASH facilities, services, and behaviours with a national, subnational or programme-based scope. It provides an assessment of the current sustainability of services in the area of study, and looks at conditions for its future sustainability. UNICEF has conducted sustainability checks since 2008, and has gained substantial experience on the key aspects to consider in this exercise.

Sustainability checks are required by many donors as an accountability mechanism and are considered a tool to support the achievement of the 2030 development agenda. Sustainability monitoring through Sustainability Checks is an explicit output in UNICEFs Strategic Plan 2018-2021.

The purpose of this document is to provide UNICEF Country Offices and partners with brief guidance on how to carry out a Sustainability Check, balancing good enough

1. For a full description of UNICEF´s approach to sustainability, please refer to: UNICEF (Forthcoming). Programming for Sustainability in water and sanitation - a framework. New York.

quality with a reasonable cost, with the aim that the exercise can be transitioned into national monitoring systems.

INTRODUCTIONSUSTAINABILITY CHECKS IN THE WIDER FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMMING Sustainability is one of the main challenges for water and sanitation services worldwide. In its endeavour to focus more systematically on the sustainability of programme outcomes, UNICEF has defined a programming framework for the sustainability of WASH services that focuses on key interventions which enhance sustainability, build national capacities and integrate sustainability within existing national systems. The framework establishes three interconnected levels of intervention (community, service level and sector), and considers the factors affecting sustainability. It includes a review of tools for assessment and monitoring of sustainability and offers programming guidance for improved sustainability1. Within this framework, Sustainability Checks are a tool to monitor and consider sustainability throughout

Figure 1. Programming pathway to sustainable services. Sustainability Checks are integrated throughout the programming cycle. They need to be planned for upfront and the findings fed back to programme managers for corrective actions.

PLAN• Analyse the Sustainability challenges• Plan for Sustainability upfront in the program• Set sustainability benchmarks and targets• Partner with Government and others• Include flexibility to respond to findings

ACT• Develop a Strategy, Compact or Plan for

Sustainability• Address Sustainability factors at ALL levels

MONITOR• Conduct programme monitoring• Conduct regular Sustainability Checks• Support National MIS

ADAPT• Institutionalise a management response to

findings in the Sustainability Check• Identify iterative response strategies• Feedback to sector

or programmes

the programming cycle (see ‘The sustainability pathway’ in Figure 1 below). Sustainability Checks also provide critical feedback, allowing the chance for programmes to evolve; increasing their ability to adapt through such feedback improves their chances of sustainability.

THE EVOLUTION OF SUSTAINABILITY CHECKS UNICEF’s Sustainability Checks were first designed and conducted in Malawi and Mozambique in 2008. To date, more than 35 Sustainability Checks have been implemented by UNICEF in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Some countries have conducted Sustainability Checks periodically (annually or every other year). In general, they have been instrumental in raising awareness about the importance of investing in an effective sector delivering services over time, and they have generated valuable debate on sustainability at country level. Because there has not been a commonly defined approach to Sustainability Checks, the scope and framework of analysis have varied in complexity over the years – both within and between countries. This lack of consistency in the approach has made trend analysis and comparison over years difficult. Additionally the high ambition and cost of the exercise coupled with insufficient national capacities have made the transition to national ownership difficult. A review of experiences of the checks has been carried out to inform this guidance: the key findings are summarised in Box 1.

However, in some cases, transition is being made to a wider national and sector ownership. In Madagascar, two Sustainability Checks have been carried out at a national sector level to inform the development of a national ‘Sustainability Action Plan’. The second check was carried out in a partnership between UNICEF, WaterAid and the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. In West Africa, support from the Government of the Netherlands has prompted annual Sustainability Checks at programme level for accountability, which has triggered programme changes for more sustainable services at community level, and is making progress towards institutionalisation2.

A Sustainability Check differs from a more comprehensive sector analysis or a ‘Sustainability Assessment’, which is a more ambitious and comprehensive analysis on how the sector overall is doing in terms of sustainability. A Sustainability Assessment can for example be carried out to provide a baseline, or to develop a national sustainability strategy or plan.

2. For more information about our experiences in the in-depth review of West and Central Africa Region (WCAR) Sustainability Framework (2016), and in the paper “Sustainability in Practice: Experiences from Rural Water and Sanitation Services in West Africa”, Sustainability Journal (2017).


BOX 1. Summary of findings of review of Sustainability Checks carried out by UNICEF between 2008 and 2016

POSITIVE LESSONS LEARNT• Checks carry more weight when they are performed by an

external third party

• Process provides a regular ‘temperature check’ on a programme

• Provides a richness of information about sustainability in the different components assessed

• Has helped to put sustainability on the agenda both nationally and internationally

• Can have positive impact on the programme through feedback loop

• Can increase dialogue with donors on accountability

• Has contributed to a global dialogue on indicators

AREAS THAT COULD BE STRENGTHENED• Process is time consuming. Procurement and

implementation can take too much time to allow for actions to take place before the next check.

• Costly. The price for the Sustainability Checks has varied greatly and has been dependent on programme funding.

• International companies mainly used which has not supported national capacity

• Varied national ownership of the check and its results

• Not standardised, hence not comparable over years or between countries

• Overly complicated

• Sometimes poor quality of methods and data collection

• Too many recommendations and not always based on the actual findings

• Not clear who should take responsibility for action on findings

WAY FORWARD• Provide support for the transition to a nationally owned

process

• Situate the check in the broader sustainability landscape in a country

• Purpose should be clear; to provide information to the Government, sector partners and UNICEF about the status of sustainability and to make key recommendations for improvements

• Checks should be harmonised and simplified

• Limited set of key service indicators

• Underlying factors for long term sustainability (with a set of indicators) should be organised at community/programme, service and local government level

• Guidance needed on sampling and data collection methods and reporting


SECTION 1: Main characteristics of a Sustainability Check A Sustainability Check is defined as a study or review to assess the sustainability of WASH facilities, services, and behaviours with a national, subnational or programme-based scope. It provides an assessment of the sustainability of services in the area of study, and looks at conditions required for its future sustainability. The Sustainability Check assesses the actual sustainability at the time of the visit, as well as prospects for future sustainability. To achieve this, the Sustainability Check assesses a limited set of core indicators of current service levels and analyses the underlying factors that influence current and future sustainability of WASH services (see Box 2).

The main purpose of a Sustainability Check is to illustrate the level of sustainability of services in the context of the national WASH agenda, and suggest course corrections by:

• Assessing and analysing the current degree of sustainability of water and sanitation facilities and services in the area of study, and the sustainability of behavioural change and newly created social norms (for example the absence of open defecation, and practice of hand washing with soap).

• Assessing the underlying factors influencing the likelihood and level of future sustainability.

• Providing information on key sustainability challenges and providing recommendations to the Government, the sector partners and UNICEF on how actual sustainability and the underlying factors can be improved to deliver more sustainable and resilient programme and sector outcomes.

To be able to achieve this the Sustainability Checks should follow some key principles. To that end, sustainability checks need to:

• Be carried out independently from the implementation agencies, to guarantee impartiality. This can mean that the study is carried out through external consultants, or through a unit within the Government that is not directly responsible for the implementation of services (for example, a monitoring and evaluation department).

3. Guidance on the statistical design are provided in the ‘Design’ section below.

4. More information about Management Response, and other mechanisms for acting upon Sustainability Check recommendations are provided in the ‘Feedback’ section.

• Be carried out regularly; the check should be carried out annually or every other year to be able to track trends and changes over time.

• Be carried out quickly, with a reasonable cost and timeframe for implementation to guarantee efficiency, and to provide a rapid feedback loop within the programme time line.

• Guarantee reasonable statistical representation at the geographical level or for the groups desired3.

• Allow for comparability across countries, regions and years, through assessing a set of standardised core indicators.

• Provide actionable recommendations on how sustainability outcomes can be improved. The assessments and recommendations can also cover the implementation of sustainability strategies, Sustainability Compacts or similar sector wide processes, depending on the scope of the study.

• Have a mechanism in place in all cases to agree to and act upon recommendations of Sustainability Checks. In many cases, this is carried out through a ‘Management Response’4.

BOX 2. Core service level indicators and underlying factors to be assessed and analysed

The list of indicator and factors is developed based on experiences from previous checks and in consultation with selected countries and partners:

Core service level indicators are quantitative or qualitative metrics or measures that represent a state of actual performance of the facility, service, or behaviour. This guidance includes a set of core indicators of the sustainability of WASH services (Annex 1) aimed at providing a quick overview of the state of service quality at the time of survey. It is strongly suggested that core service indicators should be adhered to, and part of every Sustainability Check.

Factors are elements contributing to a particular result or condition (sustainability in this case) . Sustainability factors are often classified as ‘Technical’, ‘Financial’, ‘Institutional’, ‘Environmental’ ‘Social’. Not all factors need to be assessed in all Sustainability Checks depending on context, while others are of such importance that they need to be the subject of specific in-depth studies (e.g. financial sustainability) . The list of factors (and the proposed indicators for each of them) is also included in Annex 1. Factors can be selected and tailor-made, based on the specific context and the scope of the Sustainability Check. The list provided is not exhaustive, and additional factors could be added to as necessary.


SECTION 2: Conducting a Sustainability CheckThe main elements of the process of conducting a Sustainability Check are summarised in Figure 2. The different elements are further elaborated on in the sections below.

DESIGNThe first step in performing the Sustainability Check is the design phase, which includes defining the scope of the check, setting benchmarks or targets for the indicators, designing the sampling strategy and data to be collected, and developing the data collection tools and techniques.

DEFINING THE SCOPE OF THE CHECK To define the scope it is critical to answer the following four questions:

1. Where do we want to understand sustainability? The area that the check will cover is the first aspect that needs to be decided: is it a UNICEF programme, and does it include investments of other partners, a whole district or region, or the sustainability of services for the whole country? This decision will determine the universe from which sampling will be made, and thus will heavily influence the cost and complexity of conducting the check.

2. Which WASH components are we analysing? The WASH components that should be covered by the analysis need to be clearly identified. Depending on context the Sustainability Check could focus on water services or sanitation and hygiene services, or (most commonly) the check could include all WASH

components. The check could also include sustainability at schools and/or healthcare facilities.

3. Which indicators should be used? Once the components are defined there is a list of core service level indicators (definition described in Box 1 above) for each component that should be measured through the check (see Annex 1 for the list of indicators).

4. What are the underlying factors for sustainability that should be analysed? As defined in Box 1, factors are elements contributing to sustainability. Aspects as complex and diverse as, for example, seasonal variability of water, existence of financing mechanisms, internal community cohesion or existence of local markets (see Annex 1 for the suggested list) are all potential barriers to sustainability in a specific context. Analysing all of them in detail is not recommended in a single given Sustainability Check. It is therefore important to decide which are the most important factors and the related indicators, to help analyse the enabling context for future sustainability in the particular case. Sustainability Checks can also be complemented with other in-depth studies about specific issues (e.g. tariff structures and users’ willingness to pay).

The decisions about the scope will be influenced by elements such as the interest of the main stakeholders that will use the findings, the budget available for the implementation of the Sustainability Check, the expected time for completion of the exercise and the available capacities.

SETTING TARGETS FOR EACH INDICATORLack of sustainability can manifest itself not only as a lack of functioning of the service or slippage in adhering to a new social norm, but also as a reduction in the service standards (for example a reduction in the continuity of the service, lack of conformity to quality standards, etc.). An important aspect

• Visualise results• Present and

validate findings• Acting upon findings

FEEDBACK

• Procure assessment team

• Develop data collection protocol

• Field survey and analysis

IMPLEMENT

• Define scope of analysis

• Set targets• Samples calculation• Identify data sources

and data collection techniques

DESIGN

Figure 2. The Sustainability Check process


of sustainability is setting an acceptable level of sustainability of the service or adherence to a new social norm, and that the progress towards the target is regularly monitored through a set of indicators. Although it’s desirable to achieve a 100 per cent value for each indicator, it’s neither realistic nor cost effective to strive for perfect performance. For example, agreed service levels for water supply between the community/customers and the service provider may allow for a certain amount of downtime after a breakdown (for example 48 hours), or a household may not have had time to rebuild a collapsed latrine. Or there could be people new to the village that have not yet conformed to the social norm of ODF in a community. Hence, a target value for each of the indicators used in the Sustainability Check needs to be defined before the check is conducted. In some cases, these targets might already be in place, for example if there is an existing national standard or through programme documents, or nationally agreed Sustainability Compacts5. The results of the Sustainability Check will then compare the values obtained from the field survey with the targets agreed.

SAMPLES CALCULATIONBased on the scope previously decided, the different samples that will be taken should be calculated. In general, cluster sampling6 is the most practical approach, and methods for random selection of households and facilities in the cluster should be developed7. Occasionally, it might be necessary to obtain equity-disaggregated data by certain categories (for example ethnic groups, income quintiles, gender). If so, the sample will have to be calculated to be statistically representative for each category. The accepted confidence level and margin of error of the survey will also influence the size and cost of the survey8. It is important to recognise that there will always be a trade-off between the richness and accuracy of the survey, and the complexity and cost of data collection and analysis. Additionally, it is not necessarily so that obtaining more data per se gives better information for decision-making: obtaining the right data is more important. As advised above, all Sustainability Checks should include at least the core service level indicators outlined in Annex 1.

5. For example, the ‘Accelerating Sanitation and Water for All’ (ASWA) programme, funded by the Government of The Netherlands and implemented in West and Central Africa Region (WCAR) in 2012-2018, set the general target of 85% of water points functional after 10 years, and 85% of villages to remain ODF over the same period. This was discussed at national level and in some cases was adjusted.

6. ‘Cluster sampling’ is when natural population groupings (villages, districts, etc.) are used as the basis from which to extract a subsample of households, water points, etc. (as appropriate). The sampling is then carried out in a staged process.

7. This is particularly important in instances where a list of households or water points within the cluster of sampling (village/district, etc.) is difficult to obtain.

8. Values widely accepted are a margin of error of plus or minus 5%, at a 90 or 95% level of confidence. For other alternatives, a good sample size calculator can be found at http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html.

9. The size of samples will substantially affect the total cost of the exercise; if this is decided with the consultants and not beforehand, it should be considered in the way the terms of reference and contract are written.

10. Note that for the Sustainability Check, the use of control groups is not required.

In case the check is covering a UNICEF programme, as the programme proceeds and more outputs are produced over the years, the sampling methodology will need to take into account the age of hardware facilities or the amount of time elapsed since a community has achieved ODF status. Since this is an exercise with the objective of assessing sustainability, the sampling should be skewed more towards older outputs. If the checks are done in the first two years after construction/ODF verification, additional indicators might be included in the check that relate to the quality of the process and installation (see Annex 1).

A preliminary calculation of samples is advised, to get an overview of complexity and costs of the exercise, before taking the final decision. If this is not possible, the decisions will need to be taken once the consultants are in place9.

DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES Depending on the scope of the check, there will be different data sources for each broad component of the programme as follows10:

• Water point/systems: a statistically representative sample of new/rehabilitated water points in the area of study, primarily used to assess water point functionality, reliability, continuity and seasonality of service, and factors influencing future sustainability.

• Community sanitation and hygiene: a statistically representative sample of communities that have been triggered would constitute the universe from which you should sample a number of households. Some of the communities will have been certified ODF, and some not. For the communities certified ODF, a number of extra indicators related to sustainability of ODF would apply (again, see Annex 1 for key indicators and factors).

• Schools and health centres: a statistically representative sample of schools and health centres would be needed, to assess water availability from an improved source/point, whether toilets are improved, and if


they are single-sex, the availability of hand washing facilities with soap and water, and functionality and sustainability factors that could affect present and future results.

Additionally, there are a number of indicators that will require collecting information from the village and district governments.

The techniques for data collection are primarily field observations (both of hardware and behavioural outcomes) and interviews with household members and key informants (e.g. WASH committee members). More complex sustainability factors might require a combination of these techniques for data collection and also other complementary ones – for example focus group discussions, collection of stories about a particular issue, or case studies might also be useful to ensure triangulation of data and sufficient understanding of the issues.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCUREMENT Once the design phase is finalised, the elements that will inform the terms of reference (ToR) for the procurement of the third party team are in place11. Annex 3 includes a template for the procurement of Sustainability Checks. Alternatively, UNICEF standard ToR for evaluations could be adapted and used for the procurement.

The ToR will in all cases include the scope of the exercise, the list of core indicators and selected factors to be covered by the check, based on Annex 1.

Because the Sustainability Check is meant to keep an external, independent eye on the sustainability of WASH interventions, it is usually carried out by independent monitoring teams. Because of local capacity issues, most of the Sustainability Checks implemented by UNICEF in the past have been carried out by international companies. Using established

11. If the check is to be conducted by an independent unit within the Government, the ToR will inform the technical details of the exercise.

international companies has usually meant that the checks have been of good quality, but it has also meant the process has been expensive. In addition, bringing in international companies does not necessarily support national capacity building, which could hamper the sustainability of the process itself. As a rule, countries carrying out Sustainability Checks should make sure that national capacity forms part of the assessment team, and that an element of the check process also becomes an opportunity to learn. National capacity can be found for instance among consultancy companies, management consultants or at academic institutions.

DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLOnce the procurement is carried out, the first task of the team that will implement the check is to develop the data collection protocol. As explained above, sustainability indicators and factors are informed by the data collected from the field (see Annex 1). The information for each indicator should be collected from specific sources (e.g. water points, households, key informants, schools or health institutions) and by specific techniques (e.g. observation or interviews). The specific information required from each source will need to be aggregated in a ‘data collection protocol’. This will include for instance the questionnaire to be used to collect data from stakeholders, the observations to be carried out at water points and households, and any other data to be collected. This protocol will be the document that enumerators bring to the field (see Figure 3).

Eventually, the Sustainability Check field survey and data collection may be carried out with the help of mobile phone technology/smart phones and the results directly uploaded to the web. Looking forward, an ambition should be to harmonise indicators with national monitoring systems and the data uploaded to national databases. In any case, a database with the raw results of the field survey should be created and made accessible to relevant stakeholders for future reference.

In all cases, it is necessary to collect some additional

INDICATORS DATA TO BECOLLECTED

DATASOURCES

DATACOLLECTIONTECHNIQUES

DATACOLLECTIONPROTOCOL

Figure 3. An overview of the data collection protocol process


information that allows for basic analysis, for example by the age of the installation, GPS coordinates, type, implementing agency etc. Box 3 provides a list of basic additional information that needs to be collected from the different data sources to perform the analysis of results.

FIELD SURVEY AND ANALYSIS Interviews and interactions with people in communities must be conducted according to national legal and ethical norms for study subjects12. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ascertain these and to conduct themselves accordingly in the field.

The analysis of results of Sustainability Check will be done against the targets agreed for each indicator. The analysis should also be enhanced with a desk review of the available information from previous checks or other monitoring or programme documents, to triangulate and verify results obtained.

FEEDBACKVISUALISATION OF RESULTS A critical aspect of the Sustainability Check process is to present the key findings in a way that encourages discussion, and facilitates action. One of the weaknesses of a number of Sustainability Check reports is that the analysis leads to a substantial number of recommendations, but often without prioritising them, which leads to difficulties deciding how to address the identified sustainability challenge and who should be responsible for taking action.

This guidance therefore proposes a simplified template for reporting of key aspects of the Sustainability Check, which could be used as a template for an Executive Summary or ‘dashboard’, to facilitate dialogue around the results of the checks (see Annex 2). It focuses on providing a feasible number of actionable recommendations and the identification of who should take action.

In addition to the simplified report template, graphic representation of results can be valuable to visualise the findings, helping with trend analysis and action against

12. Please refer to UNEG and UNICEF ethical standards and procedures: Ethical guidelines for evaluations: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/download/548

Evaluators’ code of conduct: http://www.unicef.org/evaluation/files/Evaluation_Principles_UNEG_Code_of_Conduct.pdf

Procedure for Ethical Standards: http://www.unicef.org/supply/files/ATTACHMENT_IV-UNICEF_Procedure_for_Ethical_Standards.PDF

Consultant’s Agreement to Adhere to UNICEF Ethical Standards when Undertaking Evidence Generation on Behalf of UNICEF: https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OoR/SiteAssets/SitePages/Ethical%20Evidence%20Generation/Individual%20Investigator%20or%20Org%20Commitment%20%20to%20Ethics%20Procedure.docx

results. Visualisation could also be useful for drawing some comparison of results across the different sectors or districts being checked, or across different years to show progress (see an example in Figure 4). Other graphs such as simple bar or line charts with the evolution of a certain indicator over time, or pie charts can help to visualise results effectively.

PRESENTING AND DISCUSSING FINDINGS Another critical aspect is to present the findings of the Sustainability Check to the different stakeholders involved. In the first place, results should be presented to the affected communities/villages/districts/regions. This helps to validate the preliminary results. The number and type of meetings for validation should be defined depending on the scope of the check, and included in the process of the Sustainability Check from the contracting stage.

The findings should also be discussed with the responsible authorities within the Government, with the aim of establishing a dialogue to agree on priorities moving forward.

BOX 3. Basic additional data to be collected in a Sustainability Check

In addition to the information required to calculate the value of the indicators, some basic additional data is always required to perform the analysis of results: For water points; i) exact geographical location, ii) type of water point, iii) age of water point, iv) agency having built or rehabilitated the water point, v) water point management arrangement/body, vi) cause of the breakdown if water point is not functioning.

For villages/communities: i) date of CLTS triggering, ii) date of ODF certification (if applicable), iii) agency having performed the triggering and the follow up, iv) total number of villages surveyed, v) total population in each village surveyed, vi) population disaggregation if available by sex, age, ethnicity and income status.

For households: i) composition of household, ii) age, sex, and education level of respondent, iii) condition of respondent within the household, iv) level of income/wealth quintile of household (if available), v) religion (if relevant), vi) ethnic group (if relevant), vii) disability (if relevant), viii) other socio, economic & demographic relevant conditions according to the context.

For management committees/WASH committees: i) composition, ii) sex disaggregation, iii) education level, iv) date of starting of activities, iv) change in composition over time.


ACTING UPON FINDINGSOne of the main aims of a Sustainability Check should be to trigger action based on its findings. The actions can vary from addressing local challenges at the water points or in the communities analysed, to the service provision levels up to the sector level, depending on the scope of the check.13A Management Response14 was developed in West and Central African countries as a means to agree on the most important and relevant recommendations from the Sustainability Checks, translating them into an action plan for UNICEF and its partners. Guidance and templates for UNICEF Management Responses are available on a dedicated webpage for evaluations. Other mechanisms can also enhance the ownership and utilisation of Sustainability Check results by other sector stakeholders, such as sharing and discussing the report at Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs).

13. Methodology to construct this type of graph: each of the core service level indicators should be compared to the target level agreed and translated to a 0 to 10 scale. For the dimensions that include more than one indicator (e.g. Reliability), the arithmetic mean of values for each indicator of the dimension can be calculated to represent the composite value for that dimension. Different colours can be used to represent the results of the different years. A similar graph can be constructed for each WASH component (e.g. water, sanitation and hygiene, and institutions)

14. A Management Response was used in West and Central Africa Region to provide official response to the recommendations of sustainability checks. A management response is signed documents (by a representative of UNICEF and the Government) which have the form of a table, including the actions to be taken under each recommendation, responsible partner, date of conclusion, status of implementation, and supporting documents.

15. Sustainability Compacts are used in Netherlands-supported programmes in West Africa and are agreements signed between UNICEF and national governments, which set out government commitments to ensure services are functioning to an agreed standard for a minimum of 10 years and specifying UNICEF’s role in supporting this effort.

SECTION 3: The way forward: national ownership for Sustainability ChecksUltimately, the aim should be the aim ultimately to transition the ownership of the Sustainability Check process to national authorities, and include sustainability monitoring as part of the regular national sector monitoring system. Data collection can then be carried out by other parties (e.g. national statistical agencies or regulatory bodies) rather than through third party monitoring depending on the degree of independence required. For the process to become aligned with the national priorities, the findings of the Sustainability Checks, assessments of the implementation of national Sustainability Compacts15 and sustainability strategies could become a chapter of the annual water sector report, or be discussed in water sector JSR meetings which include all stakeholders. This would allow for more actors to take part in discussions and be accountable to support the actions decided upon to progressively improve suitability. When there is no JSR mechanism in place, the Sustainability Check could be part of reviewing sustainability-related instruments at national level (be it a Sustainability Compact, strategy or a component of national sustainability plans).

FUNCTIONALITY

QUALITYEQUITY

2008 2009 2010

RELIABILITYACCESSIBILITY

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 4. Example of visualisation of results for different sustainability dimensions13

A1 | ANNEX 1: LIST OF INDICATORS AND FACTORS

ANN

EX 1

: Li

st o

f ind

icat

ors

and

fact

ors

RUR

AL

WAT

ER S

UPP

LY –

LIS

T O

F CO

RE S

ERVI

CE L

EVEL

IND

ICAT

ORS

#A

REA

OF

FOCU

SIN

DIC

ATO

RCA

LCU

LATI

ON

MET

HO

DM

AIN

DAT

A S

OU

RCES

AN

D D

ATA

CO

LLEC

TIO

N T

ECH

NIQ

UES

15

COM

MEN

TS

1Fu

nctio

nalit

yPe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

func

tioni

ng a

t the

tim

e of

vis

itRa

tio o

f fun

ctio

nal w

ater

poi

nts

to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f wat

er p

oint

s ex

amin

ed fo

r the

pur

pose

of t

he

chec

k, e

xpre

ssed

as

a pe

rcen

tage

.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

of a

sam

ple

of w

ater

po

ints

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on m

ost

dire

ctly

in c

harg

e of

ope

ratin

g/m

aint

aini

ng/

repa

iring

the

wat

er p

oint

.

Chec

k if

deno

min

ator

sho

uld

incl

ude

aban

done

d or

irre

para

ble

wat

er p

oint

s.

Reco

rd ty

pe o

f wat

er p

oint

, age

, and

ag

ency

(if t

here

is a

sig

n in

dica

ting

it)

2A

cces

sibi

lity

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s w

ithi

n a

30 m

inut

e ro

und-

trip

(i

nclu

ding

que

uing

) to

colle

ct

wat

er

Aver

age

time

in m

inut

es to

col

lect

w

ater

(inc

ludi

ng q

ueui

ng) f

or th

e ho

useh

old

usin

g th

e w

ater

poi

nt.

• A

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds

and/

or d

iscu

ssio

n w

ith k

ey in

form

ants

(e.g

. WA

SH

com

mitt

ee, v

illag

e le

ader

s)

Alig

nmen

t with

the

SDG

for b

asic

wat

er.

This

is th

e on

ly w

ater

sup

ply

rela

ted

indi

cato

r tha

t req

uire

s a

sam

ple

of

hous

ehol

ds, a

s op

pose

d to

the

rest

of

indi

cato

rs th

at a

ll re

quire

a s

ampl

e at

w

ater

poi

nt le

vel.

3Re

liabi

lity

/ co

ntin

uity

Ave

rage

dow

ntim

e of

wat

er

poin

ts b

efor

e re

pair

as

repo

rted

by

use

rs o

r man

ager

of w

ater

po

int (

WA

SH c

omm

itte

e)

Dur

atio

n el

apse

d be

twee

n th

e da

y of

th

e m

ost r

ecen

t bre

akdo

wn

and

the

day

the

wat

er p

oint

was

repa

ired,

av

erag

ed a

cros

s al

l wat

er p

oint

s su

rvey

ed (e

xcep

t tho

se a

band

oned

) –

expr

esse

d as

a n

umbe

r of d

ays.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on

havi

ng b

een

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in

man

agin

g th

e w

ater

poi

nt (W

ASH

com

mitt

ee)

or p

erso

n m

ost d

irect

ly in

cha

rge

of o

pera

ting/

m

aint

aini

ng/r

epai

ring

the

wat

er p

oint

.

4Re

liabi

lity

/ co

ntin

uity

A

vera

ge n

umbe

r of m

echa

nica

l br

eakd

owns

per

yea

rN

umbe

r of m

echa

nica

l bre

akdo

wns

pe

r yea

r, av

erag

ed a

cros

s al

l wat

er

poin

ts s

urve

yed.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on m

ost

dire

ctly

in c

harg

e of

ope

ratin

g/m

aint

aini

ng/

repa

iring

the

wat

er p

oint

. An

indi

catio

n of

pr

oper

siti

ng a

nd a

vaila

bilit

y of

wat

er o

ver t

he

year

. At w

ater

poi

nt-c

heck

with

man

ager

of

the

wat

er p

oint

.

5Re

liabi

lity:

se

ason

alit

yPe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

that

dr

ied

up fo

r at l

east

1 m

onth

in

the

past

yea

r

Ratio

of w

ater

poi

nts

havi

ng d

ried

up fo

r at l

east

1 m

onth

in th

e la

st

12 m

onth

s to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f w

ater

poi

nts

exam

ined

for t

he

purp

ose

of th

e ch

eck,

exp

ress

ed a

s a

perc

enta

ge.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on m

ost

dire

ctly

in c

harg

e of

ope

ratin

g/m

aint

aini

ng/

repa

iring

the

wat

er p

oint

.

An

indi

catio

n of

pro

per s

iting

and

av

aila

bilit

y of

wat

er o

ver t

he y

ear.

At

wat

er p

oint

-che

ck w

ith m

anag

er o

f the

w

ater

poi

nt.

6A

cces

sibi

lity

Perc

enta

ge o

f vill

ages

wit

h a

user

s pe

r wat

er p

oint

ratio

th

at c

ompl

ies

wit

h na

tiona

l st

anda

rds

Ratio

of v

illag

es w

here

the

user

s pe

r w

ater

poi

nt ra

tio is

equ

al to

or l

ess

than

the

natio

nal s

tand

ard,

to th

e to

tal

num

ber o

f vill

ages

sur

veye

d fo

r the

pu

rpos

e of

the

chec

k; e

xpre

ssed

as

a pe

rcen

tage

• A

cces

s to

mos

t rec

ent p

opul

atio

n da

ta b

y vi

llage

, and

the

full

list o

f (no

n-ab

ando

ned)

w

ater

poi

nts

ANNEX 1: LIST OF INDICATORS AND FACTORS | A2

#A

REA

OF

FOCU

SIN

DIC

ATO

RCA

LCU

LATI

ON

MET

HO

DM

AIN

DAT

A S

OU

RCES

AN

D D

ATA

CO

LLEC

TIO

N T

ECH

NIQ

UES

COM

MEN

TS

7In

tra-

villa

ge

equi

tyPe

rcen

tage

of c

omm

unit

ies

that

ha

ve a

t lea

st o

ne fu

nctio

nal

wat

er p

oint

per

nei

ghbo

urho

od/

com

mun

ity

subd

ivis

ion

Ratio

of v

illag

es w

here

all

neig

hbor

hood

s ha

ve a

t lea

st

one

wat

er p

oint

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

perc

enta

ge.

At v

illag

e le

vel,

ratio

of s

ub-v

illag

es

with

func

tiona

l wat

er p

oint

com

pare

d to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f sub

-vill

ages

(1

00%

mea

ns g

ood

equi

ty, l

ow

perc

enta

ge w

ill m

ean

that

ther

e is

un

equa

l dis

trib

utio

n of

wat

er p

oint

s).

• Ke

y in

form

ant:

villa

ge le

ader

or W

ASH

co

mm

ittee

.A

sk li

st o

f all

wat

er p

oint

s to

vill

age

lead

ers

and

ask

if an

y su

b-vi

llage

doe

s no

t hav

e a

wat

er p

oint

.

If th

e ch

eck

is to

be

repr

esen

tativ

e at

pro

gram

me

leve

l, th

is s

houl

d be

ca

lcul

ated

at a

ll vi

llage

s su

rvey

ed.

Sim

ple

way

of c

alcu

latin

g th

at is

to d

o a

list o

f wat

er p

oint

s pe

r vill

age.

Tha

t lis

t sho

uld

incl

ude

the

neig

hbor

hood

. Ca

lcul

ate

the

perc

enta

ges

of v

illag

es

with

suf

ficie

nt (a

ccor

ding

to v

illag

e ra

tio) b

ut u

nequ

al c

over

age

(with

one

or

mor

e no

n-co

vere

d ne

ighb

ourh

oods

).

8W

ater

Qua

lity

Perc

enta

ge o

f fun

ctio

ning

w

ater

poi

nts

mee

ting

wat

er

qual

ity

stan

dard

s at

the

time

of

mon

itor

ing

Ratio

of w

ater

poi

nts

mee

ting

wat

er

natio

nal q

ualit

y st

anda

rds

at th

e tim

e of

the

visi

t to

the

tota

l num

ber

of w

ater

poi

nts

exam

ined

for t

he

purp

ose

of th

e ch

eck,

exp

ress

ed a

s a

perc

enta

ge.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• W

ater

qua

lity

field

test

ing

thro

ugh

mea

sure

men

t with

por

tabl

e te

st k

its.

• H

ouse

hold

sur

vey

abou

t per

cept

ion

of o

dour

, co

lour

and

tast

e of

wat

er o

n th

e da

y of

the

visi

t.•

Doc

umen

t rev

iew

(nat

iona

l pol

icy/

stra

tegy

) fo

r: na

tiona

l sta

ndar

d re

late

d to

wat

er q

ualit

y.

Qua

lity

mea

sure

men

t.

Refe

r to

JMP

Com

plia

nce

with

faec

al

and

prio

rity

chem

ical

sta

ndar

ds

9Ca

tchm

ent

prot

ectio

nPe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

wit

h so

urce

and

cat

chm

ent

prot

ectio

n ac

tivi

ties

in p

lace

Ratio

of a

ll w

ater

poi

nts

surv

eyed

th

at h

ave

sour

ce a

nd c

atch

men

t pr

otec

tion

activ

ities

, exp

ress

ed a

s pe

rcen

tage

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• O

bser

vatio

ns o

f whe

ther

the

wat

er p

oint

is

prop

erly

pro

tect

ed.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant (

pers

on th

e m

ost d

irect

ly in

cha

rge

of o

pera

ting

the

wat

er p

oint

) for

: wat

er p

oint

man

agem

ent

arra

ngem

ent/

body

.

Wat

er p

oint

pro

perly

fenc

ed in

, dis

tanc

e to

san

itatio

n, e

tc.

RUR

AL

WAT

ER S

UPP

LY -

LIST

OF

FACT

ORS

Ple

ase

no

te th

at fa

ctor

s ar

e ar

eas

of c

on

cern

, whi

ch c

an b

e m

easu

red

by m

any

dif

fere

nt i

nd

icat

ors.

So

fact

ors

also

hav

e p

roxy

ind

icat

ors

to u

nd

erst

and

th

em. T

he

on

es s

ug

ges

ted

her

e ar

e o

nly

for

guid

ance

an

d d

o n

ot r

epre

sen

t an

exha

ust

ive

list.

#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES16

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

A.

COM

MU

NIT

Y/W

ATER

PO

INT

LEVE

L1

Prel

imin

ary

stud

ies

and

plan

ning

co

nduc

ted

for

sitin

g of

the

wat

er p

oint

to b

e ad

equa

te to

the

loca

l con

text

• Pe

rcen

tage

of v

illag

es w

here

hy

drog

eolo

gica

l con

ditio

ns w

ere

prop

erly

as

sess

ed a

nd d

ocum

ente

d be

fore

wat

er

poin

t con

stru

ctio

n.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of v

illag

es w

here

pla

nnin

g an

d si

ting

of w

ater

poi

nts

was

don

e in

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

with

use

rs.

• A

sam

ple

of v

illag

es in

spe

cific

ge

ogra

phic

al a

rea(

s) a

nd ti

mef

ram

e.•

Revi

ew o

f exi

sten

ce a

nd d

ocum

enta

tion

of p

relim

inar

y st

udie

s•

Key

info

rman

ts: W

ASH

com

mitt

ee a

nd/

or p

eopl

e di

rect

ly in

volv

ed in

the

proc

ess

at th

e tim

e of

con

stru

ctio

n.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Stud

ies

shou

ld in

clud

e al

l tec

hnic

al,

soci

al, f

inan

cial

, & c

ultu

ral a

spec

ts. T

his

shou

ld ta

ke in

to c

onsi

dera

tion

clim

ate,

cl

imat

e ch

ange

, and

hyd

roge

olog

ical

co

nditi

ons.

As

wel

l as

plan

ning

for i

ntra

-vi

llage

equ

ity a

nd fu

ture

use

/avo

idin

g ov

erus

e.

2Q

ualit

y of

des

ign,

co

nstr

uctio

n, a

nd

qual

ity

cont

rol o

ver

the

proc

ess

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

cons

truc

ted

by

a pr

ofes

sion

al c

onst

ruct

or.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

a

tran

spar

ent a

nd d

ocum

ente

d pr

ocur

emen

t pr

oces

s•

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s w

hich

w

here

full-

time

supe

rvis

ed b

y qu

alifi

ed

staf

f. •

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s/fa

cilit

ies

surv

eyed

whe

re g

ood

qual

ity o

f co

nstr

uctio

n is

repo

rted

by

WA

SH

com

mitt

ee.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Revi

ew o

f doc

umen

tatio

n of

the

qual

ity

of th

e pr

oces

s.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

m

ost d

irect

ly in

cha

rge

of o

pera

ting/

mai

ntai

ning

/rep

airin

g th

e w

ater

poi

nt

and/

or W

ASH

com

mitt

ee re

pres

enta

tive

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Opt

iona

l: Pr

ofes

sion

al s

uper

visi

on b

y cl

ient

or t

hird

par

ty e

.g g

over

nmen

t/bu

sine

ss/N

GO

3A

lignm

ent w

ith

user

s’ p

refe

renc

e•

Perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

lds

that

use

the

impr

oved

wat

er p

oint

as

mai

n so

urce

of

drin

king

wat

er.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of f

acili

ties

repo

rted

to b

e ac

cept

able

by

user

s.

• A

sam

ple

of h

ouse

hold

s w

ithin

the

stud

y ar

ea.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

head

of

hous

ehol

d fo

r use

r vie

ws.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

16.

It is

sug

gest

ed th

at fo

r m

ost f

acto

rs to

be

anal

ysed

, a tr

iang

ulat

ion

of d

ata

is n

eces

sary

. We

wou

ld s

ugge

st to

em

ploy

a m

ixtu

re o

f fiel

d ob

serv

atio

n, in

terv

iew

s w

ith k

ey in

form

ants

, and

qu

estio

nnai

res

for

a re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

of h

ouse

hold

s. In

som

e ca

ses,

it m

ay a

lso

be a

ppro

pria

te to

use

focu

s gr

oups

and

/or

desk

rev

iew

s of

som

e do

cum

ents

incl

udin

g na

tiona

l gui

delin

es

for

wat

er q

ualit

y, m

eetin

g re

cord

s fo

r W

AS

H C

omm

s an

d/or

loca

l cou

ncils

, as

wel

l as

agre

emen

ts w

ith s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

, etc

.

All

indi

cato

rs c

an b

e re

duce

d to

a fe

w s

ampl

ing

exer

cise

s: i)

wat

er p

oint

s, ii

) hou

seho

lds,

iii)

villa

ges,

iv) s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

(thi

s on

e w

e su

gges

t to

do th

e sa

me

sam

ple

as th

e w

ater

poi

nts,

for

prac

tical

rea

sons

). C

heck

abo

ve fo

r tip

s an

d st

anda

rd p

aram

eter

s to

cal

cula

te s

ampl

ing


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES16

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

4Lo

cal c

omm

unit

y pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in

deci

sion

mak

ing

thro

ugho

ut th

e pr

oces

s

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

whe

re

com

mun

ities

are

/wer

e in

volv

ed in

pla

nnin

g of

new

wat

er p

oint

s an

d th

eir m

anag

emen

t.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s w

here

co

mm

uniti

es a

re in

volv

ed in

the

budg

etin

g an

d ex

pend

iture

of t

he w

ater

/WA

SH

com

mitt

ees.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

whe

re

com

mun

ities

are

invo

lved

in m

onito

ring

the

serv

ices

.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

ha

ving

bee

n di

rect

ly in

volv

ed a

t tha

t tim

e in

man

agin

g th

e w

ater

poi

nt (W

ASH

co

mm

ittee

) and

with

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

offic

ial

• In

terv

iew

with

key

info

rman

ts/ f

ocus

gr

oups

of u

sers

to g

et th

eir v

iew

s.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Proc

ess

incl

udes

pla

nnin

g, d

esig

n,

cons

truc

tion,

and

man

agem

ent

arra

ngem

ents

.

5Se

rvic

es a

re

relia

ble,

aff

orda

ble

and

avai

labl

e w

hen

need

ed

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at d

ecla

re

that

wat

er p

oint

s ar

e op

en/a

vaila

ble

whe

n ne

eded

.•

Ave

rage

num

ber o

f litr

es p

rovi

ded

per

fam

ily p

er d

ay.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s pa

ying

fo

r ser

vice

s on

tim

e (a

s a

prox

y fo

r af

ford

abili

ty).

• Av

erag

e po

rtio

n (%

) of m

onth

ly in

com

e sp

ent o

n se

rvic

e pe

r fam

ily.

• Sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds

with

in th

e st

udy

area

.•

Sam

ple

of h

ouse

hold

s w

ithin

the

stud

y ar

ea.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

WA

SH

com

mitt

ee tr

easu

rer o

r equ

ival

ent.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Alig

ned

with

the

SDG

s pa

rt o

f ‘sa

fely

m

anag

ed a

ffor

dabl

e, a

vaila

ble

whe

n ne

eded

’. Th

is s

houl

d in

clud

e sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith a

ffor

dabi

lity,

relia

bilit

y, d

ista

nce,

w

ater

qua

lity

etc.

6Lo

cal w

ater

re

sour

ces

are

prop

erly

man

aged

an

d pr

otec

ted

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

sou

rce

and

catc

hmen

t pro

tect

ion

activ

ities

for

pres

erva

tion

of th

e w

ater

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f com

mun

ities

with

m

echa

nism

s in

pla

ce fo

r dec

isio

n m

akin

g an

d co

nflic

t res

olut

ion

rega

rdin

g al

loca

tion

of w

ater

reso

urce

s.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: W

ASH

co

mm

ittee

man

ager

, vill

age

chai

rman

, an

d tr

iang

ulat

ed w

ith o

ther

key

in

form

ants

and

/or f

ocus

gro

ups.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

7Sa

fety

of t

he w

ater

fr

om p

ollu

tion

and

cont

amin

atio

n is

en

sure

d by

a w

ater

sa

fety

pla

n th

at is

be

ing

impl

emen

ted

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

mea

sure

s (b

arrie

rs) t

o pr

even

t con

tam

inat

ion

at th

e w

ater

poi

nt.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

whe

re

wat

er s

afet

y m

easu

res

are

impl

emen

ted

(pro

gres

sive

ly).

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

ha

ving

bee

n di

rect

ly in

volv

ed a

t tha

t tim

e in

man

agin

g th

e w

ater

poi

nt (W

ASH

co

mm

ittee

) and

with

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

offic

ial

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Im

plem

enta

tion

of w

ater

saf

ety

mea

sure

s is

con

side

red

as a

com

mun

ity c

olle

ctiv

e ac

tion

proc

ess,

par

ticul

arly

in a

reas

with

lo

w fo

rmal

isat

ion

of s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

.

8U

nfor

esee

n ch

ange

s in

de

mog

raph

y,

polit

ical

sit

uatio

n,

or e

nvir

onm

ent a

t co

mm

unit

y le

vel

that

cri

tical

ly

affe

ct th

e se

rvic

e

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

wit

h su

dden

ch

ange

in th

e nu

mbe

r of u

sers

.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t:

WA

SH c

omm

ittee

, or g

over

nmen

t re

pres

enta

tives

.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

To

be

repo

rted

ON

LY in

the

exce

ptio

nal

case

s w

here

it h

appe

ns.


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES16

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

B.

LOCA

L G

OVE

RNM

ENT

LEVE

L9

Post

-im

plem

enta

tion

supp

ort f

rom

lo

cal a

utho

ritie

s/

adm

inis

trat

ion/

te

chni

cal

depa

rtm

ents

/ re

gula

tor i

n ch

arge

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

whe

re a

m

onito

ring

syst

em is

in p

lace

to re

port

fa

ilure

s to

loca

l gov

ernm

ent/

serv

ice

auth

ority

. •

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s th

at a

ctua

lly

rece

ive

tech

nica

l sup

port

and

sup

ervi

sion

fr

om lo

cal o

r dis

tric

t wat

er a

utho

ritie

s w

hen

need

ed.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of d

istr

icts

that

pro

vide

pos

t-im

plem

enta

tion

supp

ort.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed in

man

agin

g th

e w

ater

po

int (

WA

SH c

omm

ittee

/ car

etak

er.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

dist

rict

wat

er o

ffic

ers

(whe

n av

aila

ble)

Rev

iew

of

loca

l gov

ernm

ent r

ecor

ds if

ava

ilabl

e.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Th

is in

clud

es c

ontin

uous

mon

itorin

g,

supp

ort,

trai

ning

and

ince

ntiv

es fo

r goo

d pe

rfor

man

ce.

10Fi

nanc

ing

mec

hani

sm lo

cally

in

pla

ce to

ens

ure

affo

rdab

ility

and

co

ntin

uous

ser

vice

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

tarif

fs th

at

allo

w c

over

ing

for r

egul

ar o

pera

tions

and

m

aint

enan

ce c

osts

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f com

mun

ities

that

impl

emen

t so

lidar

ity/a

ffor

dabi

lity

mec

hani

sms.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on

man

agin

g th

e w

ater

poi

nt (W

ASH

co

mm

ittee

trea

sure

r/ s

ecre

tary

/dire

ctor

.•

Chec

k W

ASH

com

mitt

ee re

cord

s if

avai

labl

e.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds

and/

or fo

cus

grou

p.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

11Sa

fety

of w

ater

po

ints

• Ve

rific

atio

n of

wat

er s

afet

y pl

an is

car

ried

out o

nce

a ye

ar.

• Re

view

of l

ocal

gov

ernm

ent r

ecor

ds if

pr

esen

t.•

tInte

rvie

w w

ith d

istr

ict w

ater

de

part

men

t.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

i.e

. to

mon

itor w

ater

qua

lity

once

a y

ear,

and

that

the

plan

is im

plem

ente

d.


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES16

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

C. S

ERVI

CE P

ROVI

DER

S LE

VEL

12Ef

fect

iven

ess

and

capa

city

of w

ater

m

anag

emen

t co

mm

itte

e to

pe

rfor

m it

s ta

sks

and

ensu

re c

ost

reco

very

of b

asic

op

erat

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

a

form

alis

ed s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der i

n pl

ace.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

gen

der

bala

nce

in W

ASH

com

mitt

ees.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

that

car

ry

out t

heir

task

s in

ope

ratio

n, m

aint

enan

ce

and

adm

inis

trat

ion.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

WA

SH

com

mitt

ees

that

mee

t on

regu

lar b

asis

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s w

here

tarif

f is

effe

ctiv

ely/

regu

larly

col

lect

ed a

nd p

rope

rly

man

aged

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s w

ith ta

riffs

that

al

low

cov

erin

g fo

r reg

ular

ope

ratio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce c

osts

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f WA

SH c

omm

ittee

s ke

epin

g re

cord

s.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed in

man

agin

g th

e w

ater

po

int (

WA

SH c

omm

ittee

/ car

etak

er).

• Re

view

of W

ASH

com

mitt

ee re

cord

s if

avai

labl

e.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

WA

SH c

omm

ittee

in

clud

es if

it h

as th

e ap

prop

riate

hum

an,

logi

stic

al, f

inan

cial

and

tech

nica

l re

sour

ces,

and

if it

has

freq

uent

mee

tings

an

d pa

rtic

ipat

ory

deci

sion

-mak

ing.

Als

o if

it ac

tual

ly ta

kes

actio

ns to

dea

l with

pr

oble

ms

or p

oten

tial h

azar

ds. I

t is

note

d th

at w

ater

man

agem

ent c

ompa

nies

or

ser

vice

pro

vide

rs a

re n

ot e

qual

to

the

num

ber o

f vill

ages

nei

ther

to th

e nu

mbe

r of w

ater

poi

nts.

How

ever

, it

mig

ht b

e di

ffic

ult t

o ge

t a li

st o

f all

wat

er

man

agem

ent c

ompa

nies

in a

regi

on, t

o en

able

sam

plin

g, s

o pe

rhap

s it

is e

asie

r to

do it

with

the

sam

e w

ater

poi

nt s

ampl

ing.

13A

cces

sibi

lity,

and

qu

alit

y of

inpu

ts

and

tech

nici

ans

for r

epai

ring

wat

er

poin

ts w

hen

need

ed

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

acc

ess

to

tech

nici

ans

and

spar

e pa

rts

with

in 4

8 ho

urs

or n

atio

nal s

ervi

ce s

tand

ards

.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on

dire

ctly

invo

lved

in m

anag

ing

the

wat

er

poin

t (W

ASH

com

mitt

ee/ c

aret

aker

).

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Inpu

ts in

clud

e en

ergy

to ru

n th

e sy

stem

, sp

are

part

s, e

tc.

14Th

ere

are

effe

ctiv

e tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd

acco

unta

bilit

y m

echa

nism

s in

pl

ace

betw

een

user

s an

d/or

wat

er

man

agem

ent

com

mit

tee

and

the

serv

ice

prov

ider

s

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

with

writ

ten

and

sign

ed ro

les

and

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

amon

g pa

rtie

s in

ser

vice

del

iver

y.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f wat

er p

oint

s w

here

in

form

atio

n ab

out i

ncom

e an

d ex

pend

iture

ar

e pr

ovid

ed to

use

rs a

nd a

utho

ritie

s at

le

ast o

nce

per q

uart

er.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

poi

nts

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd

timef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed i

n m

anag

ing

the

wat

er

poin

t (W

ASH

com

mitt

ee/c

aret

aker

.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

ts:

hous

ehol

ds a

nd p

eopl

e at

tend

ing

WA

SH

com

mitt

ee m

eetin

gs•

Revi

ew o

f WA

SH c

omm

ittee

reco

rds

if av

aila

ble.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

15Fi

nanc

ing

mec

hani

sm in

pla

ce

loca

lly to

ens

ure

affo

rdab

ility

and

co

ntin

uous

ser

vice

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

whe

re ta

riff i

s ef

fect

ivel

y/re

gula

rly c

olle

cted

and

pro

perly

m

anag

ed.

• In

terv

iew

wit

h a

key

info

rman

t: h

eads

of

hou

seho

ld fo

r use

r vie

ws.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks


SAN

ITAT

ION

– L

IST

OF

CORE

SER

VICE

LEV

EL IN

DIC

ATO

RS

#A

REA

OF

FOCU

SIN

DIC

ATO

RM

AIN

DAT

A S

OU

RCES

COM

MEN

TS

1M

aint

enan

ce o

f O

DF

stat

usPe

rcen

tage

of O

DF-

verif

ied

com

mun

ities

that

stil

l mee

t al

l the

(nat

iona

l) O

DF

crite

ria

(ple

ase

spec

ify n

atio

nal O

DF

crite

ria).

• D

ocum

ent r

evie

w fo

r nat

iona

l OD

F cr

iteria

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on h

avin

g be

en

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in m

anag

ing

[WA

SH/

sani

tatio

n co

mm

ittee

]•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: he

ad o

f hou

seho

ld fo

r us

er v

iew

s•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t fro

m th

e ve

rific

atio

n te

am.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds.

• Th

e ai

m h

ere

is to

mea

sure

rate

of O

DF

slip

page

thro

ugh

field

ob

serv

atio

n an

d in

terv

iew

with

ben

efic

iarie

s.•

It is

impo

rtan

t to

diff

eren

tiate

in th

e re

port

bet

wee

n O

DF

slip

page

ve

rsus

reve

rsio

n to

ope

n de

feca

tion

or n

on-la

trin

e us

e at

hou

seho

ld

or in

divi

dual

leve

l.•

The

sust

aina

bilit

y ch

eck

repo

rt w

ill h

ave

to e

xpla

in th

e cr

iteria

for

OD

F ce

rtifi

catio

n in

eac

h pa

rtic

ular

cou

ntry

as

wel

l as

the

qual

ity o

f th

e ve

rific

atio

n pr

oces

s.•

It is

giv

en th

at in

eac

h vi

llage

vis

ited

the

time

sinc

e ce

rtifi

catio

n w

ill b

e co

llect

ed. P

ossi

bilit

y to

requ

ire th

at n

o vi

llage

hav

ing

been

ce

rtifi

ed re

cent

ly (i

.e. 6

mon

ths

befo

re o

r les

s) w

ill b

e su

rvey

ed.

• O

n th

e qu

estio

n of

usi

ng c

ertif

ied

or v

erifi

ed: c

ertif

ied

or c

omm

uniti

es

that

pas

sed

verif

icat

ion

can

be u

sed.

Wha

t we

don’

t wan

t is

to

incl

ude

villa

ges

that

did

not

pas

s ve

rific

atio

n.

• W

e w

ould

focu

s he

re o

nly

on o

ne s

peci

fic O

DF

crite

rion:

the

end

of

OD

prac

tice.

• B

ased

on

field

obs

erva

tion:

tran

sect

wal

k in

and

aro

und

the

villa

ge

(idea

lly u

sing

the

map

of O

D ar

eas

draw

n du

ring

the

trig

gerin

g).

2M

aint

enan

ce o

f O

DF

stat

usPe

rcen

tage

of O

DF-

verif

ied

com

mun

ities

whe

re n

o ev

iden

ce o

f ope

n de

feca

tion

can

be fo

und.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

3U

se o

f san

itat

ion

faci

litie

sPr

opor

tion/

perc

enta

ge o

f ho

useh

olds

with

acc

ess

to

basi

c la

trin

es (i

mpr

oved

no

t sha

red

with

oth

er

hous

ehol

ds).

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds.

• Id

eally

sam

plin

g is

repr

esen

tativ

e of

OD

F an

d no

n-O

DF

villa

ges.

• A

lign

with

hou

seho

ld s

urve

y qu

estio

ns re

com

men

ded

by th

e JM

P fo

r co

vera

ge.

• Ca

ptur

ing

the

impr

oved

ver

sus

unim

prov

ed a

nd s

hare

d or

not

sha

red

is e

spec

ially

impo

rtan

t in

coun

trie

s w

here

the

OD

F cr

iteria

doe

s no

t in

clud

e im

prov

ed la

trin

es o

r doe

s no

t inc

lude

han

d w

ashi

ng fa

cilit

ies.

4U

se o

f san

itat

ion

faci

litie

sPe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s ac

cess

ing

shar

ed la

trin

es

(in c

ontr

ast w

ith h

ouse

hold

s ha

ving

acc

ess

to th

eir o

wn

priv

ate

latr

ine)

.

• A

lso

in m

any

case

s at

the

time

of v

erifi

catio

n a

mud

sla

b m

ight

be

impr

oved

but

ove

r tim

e ca

n er

ode

to a

n un

impr

oved

latr

ine.

• Ti

min

g of

the

chec

ks w

ill b

e im

port

ant –

in d

ry s

easo

ns o

r wet

se

ason

s. M

aybe

goo

d to

hav

e th

e ch

eck

a fe

w m

onth

s be

fore

se

ason

al d

iarr

hoea

out

brea

ks, s

o co

rrec

tive

actio

n ca

n be

take

n in

tim

e.

5U

se o

f san

itat

ion

faci

litie

sPe

rcen

tage

of s

urve

yed

hous

ehol

ds th

at b

uilt

a ne

w

latr

ine

durin

g th

e re

port

ing

perio

d (w

heth

er o

r not

the

villa

ge w

as c

ertif

ied

OD

F)

and

that

stil

l use

that

latr

ine.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on h

avin

g be

en

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in m

anag

ing

(WA

SH/

sani

tatio

n co

mm

ittee

).•

Que

stio

nnai

re fo

r a re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

of h

ouse

hold

s.

• Ca

ptur

e us

e of

the

new

san

itatio

n fa

cilit

ies

built

•

Use

bot

h di

rect

obs

erva

tion

and

self-

repo

rtin

g fo

r lat

rine

use

whe

neve

r pos

sibl

e.

• Co

nsid

er d

oing

an

anal

ysis

of w

hich

hou

seho

lds

are

reve

rtin

g ba

ck to

op

en d

efec

atio

n an

d if

ther

e is

a d

ispr

opor

tion

of re

vers

ion

betw

een

the

gene

ral p

ropo

rtio

n an

d m

ore

vuln

erab

le p

opul

atio

ns (p

eopl

e w

ith

disa

bilit

ies,

poo

r, m

argi

nalis

ed g

roup

s, e

tc.)

6U

se o

f san

itat

ion

faci

litie

sPe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at h

ave

re-b

uilt/

upgr

aded

th

eir l

atrin

e in

the

last

yea

r.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• It

is a

pro

xy to

see

sus

tain

ed b

ehav

iour

cha

nge:

als

o st

ate

reas

on fo

r la

trin

e da

mag

e an

d m

otiv

atio

n to

rebu

ild o

r upg

rade

whe

n po

ssib

le.

7H

andw

ashi

ng

faci

lity

Perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

lds

with

func

tiona

l han

d w

ashi

ng

faci

lity

with

soa

p an

d w

ater

av

aila

ble

in v

icin

ity o

f lat

rine

and

with

evi

denc

e of

usa

ge.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

.

• U

se b

oth

dire

ct o

bser

vatio

n an

d se

lf-re

port

ing

for l

atrin

e us

e w

hene

ver p

ossi

ble.

A7| ANNEX 1: LIST OF INDICATORS AND FACTORS

#A

REA

OF

FOCU

SIN

DIC

ATO

RM

AIN

DAT

A S

OU

RCES

COM

MEN

TS

8H

andw

ashi

ng

prac

tice

Perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

ld

resp

onde

nts

repo

rtin

g al

way

s w

ashi

ng th

eir h

ands

w

ith s

oap

or a

sh a

t spe

cific

cr

itica

l tim

es.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spec

ific

geog

raph

ical

are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.


SAN

ITAT

ION

– L

IST

OF

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y FA

CTO

RS

Ple

ase

no

te th

at fa

ctor

s ar

e ar

eas

of c

on

cern

, whi

ch c

an b

e m

easu

red

by m

any

dif

fere

nt i

nd

icat

ors.

So

fact

ors

also

hav

e p

roxy

ind

icat

ors

to u

nd

erst

and

th

em. T

he

on

es s

ug

ges

ted

her

e ar

e o

nly

for

guid

ance

an

d d

o n

ot r

epre

sen

t an

exha

ust

ive

list.

#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A C

OLL

ECTI

ON

TE

CHN

IQU

ES17

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

A.

COM

MU

NIT

Y LE

VEL

1Pr

esen

ce o

f wat

er

to b

uild

, rep

air o

r cl

ean

the

latr

ine

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at

decl

are

havi

ng a

dequ

ate

acce

ss to

w

ater

to c

lean

latr

ine

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spe

cific

geo

grap

hica

l are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

hous

ehol

d he

ads

for

user

vie

ws.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on h

avin

g be

en

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in m

anag

ing

(WA

SH/

sani

tatio

n co

mm

ittee

).

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

•

This

incl

udes

: ava

ilabi

lity,

acc

essi

bilit

y/di

stan

ce, f

unct

iona

lity,

aff

orda

bilit

y.

2Re

silie

nt

cons

truc

tion

of

latr

ines

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s w

here

la

trin

es w

ere

dam

aged

or c

olla

psed

in

last

yea

r due

to h

eavy

rain

s, s

oil

colla

pse

or o

ther

s.

• Pr

opor

tion/

perc

enta

ge o

f lat

rines

th

at w

ere

repa

ired/

rebu

ilt w

ithin

1

mon

th a

fter

filli

ng u

p or

get

ting

dam

aged

.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spe

cific

geo

grap

hica

l are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

hous

ehol

d he

ad fo

r us

er v

iew

s•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

hav

ing

been

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed a

t tha

t tim

e in

man

agin

g (W

ASH

/sa

nita

tion

com

mitt

ee)

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

• So

il an

d gr

ound

con

ditio

ns in

clud

e, fo

r ex

ampl

e: n

ot p

rone

to fl

ood,

not

rock

y,

sand

y, n

o hi

gh g

roun

d w

ater

tabl

e.•

Clim

ate

cond

ition

s in

clud

e, fo

r exa

mpl

e:

no h

eavy

rain

s, p

erio

dic

hurr

ican

es.

• G

ood

desi

gn a

nd lo

catio

n.

3W

illin

gnes

s to

pa

y/ p

rior

itis

atio

n of

san

itat

ion

amon

g ar

eas

of

expe

ndit

ure

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at

repo

rt s

anita

tion

as a

hig

h pr

iorit

y.•

Prop

ortio

n/pe

rcen

tage

of l

atrin

es

that

wer

e re

paire

d/re

built

/up

grad

ed in

the

last

yea

r (or

sin

ce

OD

F ve

rific

atio

n)

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

. •

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

hav

ing

been

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed a

t tha

t tim

e in

man

agin

g (W

ASH

/sa

nita

tion

com

mitt

ee).

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

17.

It is

sug

gest

ed th

at fo

r m

ost f

acto

rs to

be

anal

ysed

, a tr

iang

ulat

ion

of d

ata

is n

eces

sary

. We

wou

ld s

ugge

st e

mpl

oyin

g a

mix

ture

of fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion,

inte

rvie

ws

with

key

info

rman

ts, a

nd

ques

tionn

aire

s fo

r a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

hou

seho

lds.

In s

ome

case

s, it

may

als

o be

app

ropr

iate

to u

se fo

cus

grou

ps a

nd/o

r de

sk r

evie

ws

of s

ome

docu

men

ts in

clud

ing

natio

nal g

uide

lines

fo

r op

en d

efec

atio

n, m

eetin

g re

cord

s fo

r W

AS

H c

omm

ittee

s an

d/or

loca

l cou

ncils

, etc

.

Indi

cato

rs w

ith a

n *

are

ON

LY R

ELEV

AN

T FO

R N

EWLY

(UP

TO 2

YEA

RS

) OD

F-ve

rifie

d co

mm

uniti

es [N

B is

this

foot

note

sup

pose

d to

be

sepa

rate

? D

ifficu

lt to

see

whe

re th

e on

es m

arke

d w

ith a

n

aste

risk

are

. Sug

gest

it s

houl

d be

a s

epar

ate

foot

note

at fi

rst a

ster

isk?

]


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A C

OLL

ECTI

ON

TE

CHN

IQU

ES17

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

4Ex

iste

nce

of a

co

mm

unit

y ba

sed

body

that

is

capa

ble,

dyn

amic

, an

d su

ppor

ted

by lo

cal l

eade

rs

rein

forc

ing

soci

al

sani

tatio

n or

hy

gien

e no

rms

• Pe

rcen

tage

of c

omm

uniti

es w

ith a

n ex

istin

g co

mm

ittee

/ass

ocia

tion/

in

divi

dual

s ac

tive

(reg

ular

m

eetin

gs, a

nd a

ctio

ns ta

ken)

and

pr

ovid

ing

cont

inuo

us p

rom

otio

n of

sa

nita

tion.

• Fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

for a

sam

ple

of c

ertif

ied

com

mun

ities

in

spe

cific

geo

grap

hica

l are

a(s)

and

tim

efra

me.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

hous

ehol

d he

ads

for

user

vie

ws.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on h

avin

g be

en

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in m

anag

ing

(WA

SH/

sani

tatio

n co

mm

ittee

).

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

•

Com

mun

ity b

ased

bod

y in

clud

es:

(san

itatio

n/W

ASH

/oth

er c

omm

ittee

, ge

nera

l ass

embl

ies

dedi

cate

d to

WA

SH

issu

es e

tc.)

.•

Capa

ble

com

mitt

ees

indi

cate

that

they

ar

e w

ell t

rain

ed a

nd re

sour

ced.

• D

ynam

ic c

omm

ittee

s ar

e co

mm

ittee

s th

at h

ave

freq

uent

mee

tings

, pa

rtic

ipat

ory

deci

sion

-mak

ing,

act

ions

ta

ken,

etc

.•

Loca

l lea

ders

incl

ude:

loca

l chi

ef, l

ocal

go

vern

men

t…

5A

ffor

dabi

lity

of

stan

dard

hou

seho

ld

latr

ine

that

is

bein

g pr

omot

ed

in th

e ar

ea a

nd

of m

ater

ial &

se

rvic

es, t

akin

g in

to c

onsi

dera

tion

the

poss

ible

ex

iste

nce

of in

-ki

nd o

r fin

anci

ng

supp

ort f

or th

e po

ores

t

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at

repo

rt th

at th

ey c

an a

ffor

d la

trin

e co

nstr

uctio

n.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at

have

acc

ess

to fi

nanc

e m

echa

nism

s if

need

ed.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

. •

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

hav

ing

been

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed a

t tha

t tim

e in

man

agin

g (W

ASH

/sa

nita

tion

com

mitt

ee).

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

•

Stan

dard

latr

ine

prom

otio

n re

fers

to

pro

mot

ion

carr

ied

out b

y th

e G

over

nmen

t, lo

cal a

utho

ritie

s an

d N

GO

s - e

arlie

r or c

urre

ntly

.•

Fina

ncin

g su

ppor

t cou

ld in

clud

e:

com

mun

ity s

olid

arity

, sub

sidi

es, m

icro

cr

edit,

tont

ines

etc

.

6A

dequ

ate

oper

atio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce o

f th

e la

trin

e

• Pe

rcen

tage

of l

atrin

es in

goo

d co

nditi

on (i

nclu

des

visu

al c

heck

). •

Fiel

d ob

serv

atio

n fo

r a s

ampl

e of

cer

tifie

d co

mm

uniti

es

in s

peci

fic g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea(

s) a

nd ti

mef

ram

e.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: ho

useh

old

head

s fo

r us

er v

iew

s.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

•

Goo

d co

nditi

ons

of la

trin

es in

clud

es:

(cle

an, g

ood

light

, no

odou

r, et

c.)

7Ex

iste

nce

of s

ocia

l no

rm s

uppo

rtin

g th

e O

DF

stat

us:

exis

tenc

e of

a

loca

l by-

law

and

co

rres

pond

ing

sanc

tions

or

rew

ard

• Ex

iste

nce

of (w

ritte

n or

unw

ritte

n)

loca

l by-

law

s on

the

adhe

renc

e to

O

DF

with

cor

resp

ondi

ng s

anct

ions

an

d re

war

ds.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

.•

Doc

umen

t rev

iew

if a

vaila

ble;

reco

rd if

san

ctio

ns a

re

bein

g up

held

.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

•

Pres

ence

of e

nfor

ced

soci

al s

anct

ions

is

a go

od p

roxy

for t

he p

rese

nce

of s

ocia

l no

rms.

• N

ote

if a

long

er a

sses

smen

t is

done

th

e qu

estio

ns s

houl

d ex

pand

to in

clud

e si

gns

of e

mpi

rical

and

nor

mat

ive

expe

ctat

ions

. Re

fer t

o So

cial

nor

ms

and

CATS

gui

danc

e.

• D

o m

ost o

f the

peo

ple

in y

our v

illag

e be

lieve

that

peo

ple

shou

ld u

se a

latr

ine?

If

som

eone

in y

our v

illag

e w

as o

bser

ved

defe

catin

g in

the

open

, wha

t wou

ld

happ

en to

them

? U

se o

f vig

nett

es m

ay

be n

eces

sary

.


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A C

OLL

ECTI

ON

TE

CHN

IQU

ES17

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

B.

SUPP

ORT

LEV

EL8

Qua

lity

of

trig

geri

ng p

roce

ss•

Part

icip

atio

n of

a h

igh

perc

enta

ge

of c

omm

unity

mem

bers

from

all

cate

gorie

s in

clud

ing

men

, wom

en,

child

ren,

peo

ple

with

dis

abili

ties,

pe

ople

from

poo

rest

hou

seho

lds,

pe

ople

from

min

ority

gro

ups,

de

cisi

on m

aker

s, o

pini

on le

ader

s,

elde

rly, e

tc.*

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f com

mun

ity m

embe

rs

reca

lling

mai

n m

essa

ges

of th

e tr

igge

ring*

.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: pe

rson

hav

ing

been

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed a

t tha

t tim

e of

trig

gerin

g.

Prog

ram

me

mon

itorin

g an

d Su

stai

nabi

lity

Chec

ks (i

n ne

wly

O

DF-

cert

ified

co

mm

uniti

es)

9Q

ualit

y of

OD

F ve

rific

atio

n pr

oces

s

• Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of a

larg

e nu

mbe

r (7

0%) o

f hou

seho

lds

mem

bers

*.

• A

chec

klis

t was

use

d fo

r ce

rtifi

catio

n w

ith c

lear

cer

tific

atio

n cr

iteria

*.

• A

larg

e nu

mbe

r of h

ouse

hold

s an

d O

D ar

eas

arou

nd th

e vi

llage

w

ere

visi

ted

for t

he v

erifi

catio

n pr

oces

s*.

• In

volv

emen

t of a

ctor

s ot

her t

han

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs (m

edia

, go

vern

men

t off

icia

ls, n

eigh

bour

ing

com

mun

ities

etc

.) in

ver

ifica

tion

proc

ess*

.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

hous

ehol

d he

ads

for

user

vie

ws.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on h

avin

g be

en

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in m

anag

ing

(WA

SH/

sani

tatio

n co

mm

ittee

).•

Doc

umen

t rev

iew

if a

vaila

ble.

Prog

ram

me

mon

itorin

g an

d Su

stai

nabi

lity

Chec

ks (i

n ne

wly

O

DF-

cert

ified

co

mm

uniti

es)

• D

ocum

ent t

he c

ertif

icat

ion

crite

ria th

at

wer

e us

ed.

10Ex

iste

nce

of p

ost-

trig

geri

ng fo

llow

up

supp

ort a

ctiv

itie

s an

d ty

pe &

qua

lity

of th

ese

acti

vitie

s

• Pe

rcen

tage

of c

omm

uniti

es

with

pos

t-tr

igge

ring

follo

w u

p su

ppor

t act

iviti

es, b

y N

GO

s, lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent o

r bot

h.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f com

mun

ities

with

a

post

-OD

F ac

tion

plan

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f dis

tric

ts w

ith th

e ca

paci

ty (h

uman

and

fina

ncia

l re

sour

ces)

to p

rovi

de p

ost-

OD

F fo

llow

-up

supp

ort.

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

old

• In

terv

iew

with

san

itatio

n co

mm

ittee

mem

bers

/ na

tura

l co

mm

unity

lead

ers.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on h

avin

g be

en

dire

ctly

invo

lved

at t

hat t

ime

in m

anag

ing

(WA

SH/

sani

tatio

n co

mm

ittee

). •

Inte

rvie

w w

ith d

istr

ict o

ffic

ials

.•

Chec

k di

stric

t rec

ords

if a

vaila

ble.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Post

trig

gerin

g su

ppor

t sho

uld

incl

ude:

• up

datin

g th

e co

mm

unity

map

• te

chni

cal t

rain

ing

of c

omm

unity

m

embe

rs o

r mas

ons

on c

onst

ruct

ion

tech

niqu

es•

cros

s-vi

sits

and

lear

ning

• tr

aini

ng o

f san

itatio

n co

mm

ittee

s •

sani

tatio

n/W

ASH

mar

ketin

g, e

tc.

• vi

sits

of e

xter

nal s

take

hold

ers.

..•

addi

tiona

l san

itatio

n &

hyg

iene

rela

ted

mes

sage

s (s

uch

as h

and

was

hing

,chi

ld

faec

es m

anag

emen

t, gr

ey w

ater

and

so

lid w

aste

man

agem

ent)

.


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A C

OLL

ECTI

ON

TE

CHN

IQU

ES17

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

11A

vaila

bilit

y/

acce

ssib

ility

, ap

prop

riat

enes

s/at

trac

tive

ness

of

san

itat

ion

mat

eria

ls, p

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

to

repa

ir/m

aint

ain/

im

prov

e th

e la

trin

es

• Pe

rcen

tage

of h

ouse

hold

s th

at

repo

rt e

asy

avai

labi

lity

of s

anita

tion

mat

eria

ls, p

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

(e

.g. s

labs

, mas

ons)

• Q

uest

ionn

aire

for a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

ho

useh

olds

.•

Inte

rvie

w w

ith a

key

info

rman

t: sa

nita

tion

com

mitt

ee,

villa

ge le

ader

s.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

• D

iffic

ult o

ne: t

his

will

als

o re

quire

a

list o

f bas

ic m

ater

ials

if y

ou w

ant t

o co

mpa

re th

is o

ver t

ime.

12Th

ere

is a

fu

nctio

nal

mon

itor

ing

syst

em

in p

lace

that

tr

igge

rs c

orre

ctiv

e ac

tion

at lo

wes

t le

vel

• Pe

rcen

tage

of d

istr

icts

whe

re a

fu

nctio

ning

mon

itorin

g sy

stem

(a

ble

to c

olle

ct, a

naly

se a

nd re

port

on

san

itatio

n pr

ogra

mm

e) is

in

plac

e.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f com

mun

ities

with

a

func

tiona

l mon

itorin

g sy

stem

in

pla

ce th

at tr

igge

rs c

orre

ctiv

e ac

tion

at lo

wes

t lev

el.

• In

terv

iew

with

dis

tric

t sta

ff.

• In

terv

iew

with

san

itatio

n co

mm

ittee

lead

ers.

Su

stai

nabi

lity

Chec

k •

Inte

rvie

w w

ith d

istr

ict s

taff

• In

terv

iew

with

san

itatio

n co

mm

ittee

lead

ers.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks


WA

SH IN

SCH

OO

LS A

ND

HEA

LTH

CA

RE F

ACI

LITI

ES –

LIS

T O

F CO

RE S

ERVI

CE L

EVEL

IND

ICAT

ORS

R

efer

to th

e W

HO

/UN

ICEF

Cor

e qu

estio

ns a

nd in

dica

tors

for

mon

itori

ng W

AS

H in

Sch

ools

in th

e S

usta

inab

le D

evel

opm

ent G

oals

, pub

lishe

d by

the

JMP

in

2016

and

Cor

e qu

estio

ns a

nd in

dica

tors

for

mon

itori

ng h

ealth

car

e fa

cilit

ies

in th

e S

usta

inab

le D

evel

opm

ent G

oals

, bot

h pu

blis

hed

by th

e JM

P in

201

6, fo

r ad

ditio

nal g

uida

nce

on

mon

itori

ng a

nd d

efin

ition

of i

ndic

ator

s w

hich

hav

e b

een

agre

ed u

pon

by th

e G

loba

l Tas

k Te

am fo

r M

onito

ring

WA

SH

in S

choo

ls

in th

e S

DG

s, c

onve

ned

by th

e JM

P18. T

hey

are

base

d on

the

curr

ent g

loba

l nor

ms19

, exi

stin

g na

tiona

l sta

ndar

ds,

que

stio

ns in

nat

iona

l cen

suse

s an

d m

ulti-

natio

nal s

urve

ys, g

loba

l Win

S m

onito

ring

rec

omm

enda

tions

20, a

nd n

orm

ativ

e hu

man

rig

hts

crite

ria:

ava

ilabi

lity,

acc

epta

bilit

y, a

cces

sibi

lity

and

qual

ity.

ARE

A O

F FO

CUS

IND

ICAT

ORS

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES

COM

MEN

TS

Wat

er a

t sc

hool

s an

d he

alth

fa

cilit

ies

Perc

enta

ge o

f sch

ools

/ he

alth

faci

litie

s w

ith

suff

icie

nt n

umbe

r of w

ater

poi

nts

that

are

abl

e to

pr

ovid

e w

ater

all

year

roun

d, a

ccor

ding

to n

atio

nal

stan

dard

s.

At s

ampl

e sc

hool

s:•

Obs

erva

tion

of a

sam

ple

of s

choo

ls to

see

if

wat

er is

ava

ilabl

e at

the

time

of th

e vi

sit.

• Ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s w

ith s

choo

l hea

d te

ache

rs o

r tea

cher

in c

harg

e of

wat

er fa

cilit

ies.

• Ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s w

ith c

hild

ren.

• Th

e w

ater

sou

rce

shou

ld b

e w

ithin

the

scho

ol c

ompo

und.

•

App

lies

to p

re- p

rimar

y, p

rimar

y an

d se

cond

ary

scho

ols.

Sani

tatio

n at

sch

ools

an

d he

alth

fa

cilit

ies

Perc

enta

ge o

f sch

ools

/ he

alth

faci

litie

s w

ith

exis

tenc

e of

suf

ficie

nt, i

mpr

oved

, sep

arat

ed,

func

tiona

l, an

d hy

gien

ic/c

lean

latr

ines

acc

ordi

ng to

na

tiona

l sta

ndar

ds.

At s

ampl

e sc

hool

s:•

Inte

rvie

ws

with

girl

s an

d bo

ys –

incl

udin

g gi

rls a

nd b

oys

with

dis

abili

ties

– w

ho u

se th

e la

trin

e fa

cilit

ies

and

teac

hers

/ m

anag

ers

of th

e fa

cilit

ies.

• Fo

cus

grou

p di

scus

sion

s w

ith g

irls

and

boys

(s

epar

ate

or to

geth

er a

s ne

eded

). •

Dire

ct o

bser

vatio

n of

sch

ool l

atrin

es.

• D

oors

are

unl

ocke

d or

a k

ey is

ava

ilabl

e at

all

times

, is

not

bro

ken,

the

hole

not

blo

cked

, wat

er is

ava

ilabl

e fo

r flu

shin

g/po

ur fl

ush

at a

ll tim

es, a

nd th

e do

ors

are

lock

able

from

insi

de w

ith n

o la

rge

gaps

at t

ime

of v

isit.

• Fa

cilit

ies

are

acce

ssib

le to

all

stud

ents

, inc

ludi

ng

the

youn

gest

stu

dent

s at

the

scho

ol a

nd th

ose

with

di

sabi

litie

s, a

nd m

eet t

he m

enst

rual

hyg

iene

nee

ds o

f gi

rls.

• A

pplie

s to

pre

- prim

ary,

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s.

Han

d w

ashi

ng

faci

litie

s at

sch

ools

an

d he

alth

fa

cilit

ies

Perc

enta

ge o

f sch

ools

/ he

alth

faci

litie

s ha

ving

a

suff

icie

nt n

umbe

r of f

unct

iona

l han

d w

ashi

ng

stat

ions

with

wat

er a

nd s

oap

with

evi

denc

e of

us

age.

At s

ampl

e sc

hool

s:•

Obs

erva

tion

of a

sam

ple

of s

choo

ls to

see

if

wat

er a

nd s

oap

is a

vaila

ble

at th

e tim

e of

the

visi

t. •

Key

info

rman

t int

ervi

ews

with

chi

ldre

n.

18.

The

task

team

was

an

open

mem

bers

hip

grou

p, c

onsi

stin

g of

ove

r 40

WA

SH

in s

choo

ls e

xper

ts, w

ho c

ondu

cted

biw

eekl

y m

eetin

gs o

ver

a th

ree

mon

th p

erio

d. A

gree

men

t was

fina

lised

at a

n

Expe

rt G

roup

Mee

ting

host

ed b

y th

e JM

P on

20-

21 J

une,

as

docu

men

ted

in th

e m

eetin

g re

port

: htt

p://w

ww

.wss

info

.org

/file

adm

in/u

ser_

uplo

ad/r

esou

rces

/Win

S-E

xper

t-G

roup

-Mee

ting-

June

-201

6-R

epor

t_FI

NA

L.pd

f

19.

WH

O (2

009)

Wat

er, s

anita

tion

and

hygi

ene

stan

dard

s fo

r sc

hool

s in

low

-cos

t set

tings

.

20.

UN

ICEF

(201

1) W

AS

H in

sch

ools

mon

itori

ng p

acka

ge.


WA

SH IN

SCH

OO

LS A

ND

HEA

LTH

CARE

FA

CILI

TIES

– L

IST

OF

SUST

AIN

ABI

LITY

FA

CTO

RS

Ple

ase

no

te th

at fa

ctor

s ar

e ar

eas

of c

on

cern

, whi

ch c

an b

e m

easu

red

by m

any

dif

fere

nt i

nd

icat

ors.

Th

e lis

t bel

ow is

for

guid

ance

an

d d

o n

ot r

epre

sen

t an

exh

aust

ive

list.

21

#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

OR

(S)

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES21

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

A.

SCH

OO

L/H

EALT

H C

ENTR

E LE

VEL

1Lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e pl

anni

ng,

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d m

onit

orin

g of

W

ASH

faci

litie

s (i

nclu

des

scho

ol

man

agem

ent c

omm

itte

es, p

aren

t an

d te

ache

r ass

ocia

tions

, stu

dent

s,

heal

th w

orke

rs, o

r oth

ers

as lo

cally

ap

prop

riat

e)

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls w

here

th

ere

has

been

act

ive

invo

lvem

ent

of lo

cal a

ctor

s in

pla

nnin

g,

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

of

WA

SH fa

cilit

ies.

• Ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s w

ith s

choo

l m

anag

ers,

app

oint

ed W

ASH

man

ager

s in

sc

hool

s or

hea

lthca

re fa

cilit

y, a

nd s

tude

nt

lead

ers.

• Fo

cus

grou

p di

scus

sion

s an

d/or

str

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

with

teac

hers

, stu

dent

s,

pare

nts,

and

hea

lth w

orke

rs.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Part

icip

atio

n sh

ould

be

activ

e an

d m

eani

ngfu

l at a

ll st

ages

.

2Q

ualit

y of

des

ign,

con

stru

ctio

n, a

nd

qual

ity

cont

rol o

ver t

he p

roce

ss

Alt

erna

te: q

ualit

y/ fu

nctio

nalit

y of

fa

cilit

ies

• Pe

rcen

tage

of w

ater

poi

nts

cons

truc

ted

by a

trai

ned

prof

essi

onal

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f fac

ilitie

s in

goo

d co

nditi

on p

er th

e us

e of

san

itary

su

rvey

s.

• Fi

eld

chec

k a

sam

ple

of w

ater

sup

ply

syst

em a

nd s

anita

tion

faci

litie

s in

spe

cific

ge

ogra

phic

al a

rea(

s) a

nd ti

mef

ram

e, u

sing

sa

nita

ry s

urve

ys.

• Re

view

of d

ocum

enta

tion

of th

e qu

ality

of

the

proc

ess.

• In

terv

iew

with

a k

ey in

form

ant:

pers

on

mos

t dire

ctly

in c

harg

e of

ope

ratin

g/m

aint

aini

ng/r

epai

ring

the

WA

SH fa

cilit

ies.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Soil

and

grou

nd c

ondi

tions

in

clud

e, fo

r exa

mpl

e: n

ot p

rone

to

floo

d, n

ot ro

cky,

san

dy, n

o hi

gh g

roun

d w

ater

tabl

e.• C

limat

e co

nditi

ons

incl

ude,

fo

r exa

mpl

e: n

o he

avy

rain

s,

perio

dic

hurr

ican

es.

• Goo

d de

sign

and

loca

tion.

3A

lignm

ent w

ith

user

s’ p

refe

renc

e•

Perc

enta

ge o

f sch

ools

whe

re g

irls

and

child

ren

with

lim

ited

mob

ility

re

port

the

abili

ty to

acc

ess

and

use

WA

SH fa

cilit

ies

in li

ne w

ith th

eir

need

s.

• Ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

with

girl

s an

d ch

ildre

n w

ith li

mite

d m

obili

ty.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

4Ex

iste

nce

of W

ASH

clu

bs in

sc

hool

s to

rein

forc

e th

e st

uden

t bo

dy to

pra

ctic

e an

d pr

omot

e ha

nd

was

hing

, dri

nk c

lean

and

saf

e w

ater

an

d ke

ep p

it la

trin

es/t

oile

ts c

lean

an

d hy

gien

ic

• N

umbe

r of s

choo

ls w

ith s

tude

nt

WA

SH c

lubs

that

mee

t reg

ular

ly

prom

ote

beha

viou

r cha

nge

on

WA

SH a

nd re

info

rce

curr

icul

um.

• D

irect

obs

erva

tion

of W

ASH

clu

b ac

tiviti

es

in s

choo

ls in

a g

eogr

aphi

c ar

ea o

f foc

us.

• Re

cord

s of

act

iviti

es.

• Ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s w

ith c

omm

uniti

es

and

WA

SH fo

cal p

oint

teac

hers

and

st

uden

ts.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

WA

SH c

lubs

sho

uld

be

inst

itutio

naliz

ed a

s pa

rt o

f th

e sc

hool

str

uctu

re fo

r su

stai

nabi

lity.

21.

It is

sug

gest

ed th

at fo

r m

ost f

acto

rs to

be

anal

ysed

, a tr

iang

ulat

ion

of d

ata

is n

eces

sary

. We

wou

ld s

ugge

st to

em

ploy

a m

ixtu

re o

f fiel

d ob

serv

atio

n, in

terv

iew

s w

ith k

ey in

form

ants

, and

qu

estio

nnai

res

for

a re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

of fa

cilit

ies.

In s

ome

case

s, it

may

als

o be

app

ropr

iate

to u

se fo

cus

grou

ps a

nd/o

r de

sk r

evie

ws

of s

ome

docu

men

ts in

clud

ing

natio

nal g

uide

lines

fo

r W

AS

H in

sch

ools

, sch

ool o

r he

alth

car

e fa

cilit

y ru

les/

stan

dard

s, a

nd/o

r lo

cal c

ounc

ils, a

s w

ell a

s ag

reem

ents

with

ser

vice

pro

vide

rs, e

tc.


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

OR

(S)

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES21

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

5A

dequ

ate

oper

atio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce o

f sch

ool W

ASH

fa

cilit

ies

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

with

a re

spon

sibl

e pe

rson

iden

tifie

d fo

r WA

SH

mai

nten

ance

.•

Perc

enta

ge o

f sch

ools

and

he

alth

car

e fa

cilit

ies

with

bud

get

allo

cate

d fo

r WA

SH m

aint

enan

ce.

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls a

nd

heal

th c

are

faci

litie

s th

at h

ave

utili

sed

budg

ets

for W

ASH

m

aint

enan

ce.

• St

ruct

ured

inte

rvie

ws

with

sch

ool h

eads

, cl

inic

al o

ffic

ers,

com

mitt

ees.

• Re

view

of d

ocum

ents

.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Ded

icat

ed o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

bud

gets

to e

nsur

e m

aint

enan

ce a

nd s

usta

inab

ility

of

faci

litie

s fr

om s

choo

l gra

nts,

fu

ndin

g fr

om m

inis

trie

s of

ed

ucat

ion

and

heal

th, o

r fr

om lo

cal r

even

ues,

par

ent

cont

ribut

ions

.

6A

vaila

bilit

y of

cle

anin

g su

pplie

s fo

r mai

nten

ance

of p

it la

trin

es a

nd

toile

ts

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

with

a s

tock

of

supp

lies

for c

lean

ing

scho

ol to

ilets

on

the

day

of th

e vi

sit.

• Fi

eld

chec

k/ob

serv

atio

nPr

ojec

t mon

itorin

g an

d Su

stai

nabi

lity

Chec

ksSu

pplie

rs a

nd s

uppl

ies

shou

ld

be lo

cally

ava

ilabl

e.

7Lo

cal f

acili

ty-b

ased

cap

acit

y fo

r m

onit

orin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce o

f W

ASH

faci

litie

s

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

whe

re te

ache

rs,

com

mitt

ees,

clu

bs a

nd a

nd h

ealth

ca

re w

orke

rs, a

re tr

aine

d in

pl

anni

ng, b

udge

ting,

impl

emen

ting

and

mon

itorin

g of

WA

SH a

ctiv

ities

an

d fa

cilit

ies.

• St

ruct

ured

inte

rvie

ws

with

sch

ool h

eads

, Cl

inic

al O

ffic

ers,

com

mitt

ees

• Fo

cuse

d gr

oup

disc

ussi

ons

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Scho

ol h

eads

, clin

ical

off

icer

s an

d W

ASH

com

mitt

ees/

clu

bs

are

trai

ned

and

shou

ld p

osse

ss

tran

sfer

able

kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s.

8In

tegr

atio

n of

WA

SH p

ract

ices

into

fa

cilit

y ru

les

and

rout

ines

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

with

han

dwas

hing

, w

ater

trea

tmen

t, or

oth

er W

ASH

pr

actic

es re

cord

ed in

sch

ool r

ules

an

d/or

with

spe

cifie

d tim

e fo

r pr

actic

e, s

uch

as b

efor

e m

eals

.

• Re

view

of f

acili

ty p

oste

d ru

les

and

sche

dule

s, s

ubst

antia

ted

via

obse

rvat

ion

and

inte

rvie

ws

with

chi

ldre

n, te

ache

rs, o

r ot

her k

ey in

form

ants

.

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks


#SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

FACT

OR

SUG

GES

TED

IND

ICAT

OR

(S)

MA

IN D

ATA

SO

URC

ES A

ND

DAT

A

COLL

ECTI

ON

TEC

HN

IQU

ES21

MO

NIT

ORI

NG

TO

OL

COM

MEN

TS

B.

GO

VERN

MEN

T LE

VEL

9A

dequ

ate

annu

al b

udge

ts a

re

allo

cate

d to

sch

ools

and

hea

lth

care

fa

cilit

ies

for n

ew W

ASH

faci

litie

s an

d m

aint

enan

ce o

f exi

stin

g on

es

• N

umbe

r of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

that

hav

e bu

dget

s al

loca

ted

to p

rovi

sion

of n

ew

WA

SH fa

cilit

ies

and

mai

nten

ance

of

exi

stin

g on

es.

• Re

view

of b

udge

tary

pla

ns in

sch

ools

in a

ge

ogra

phic

are

a of

focu

s.Su

stai

nabi

lity

Chec

ks

10W

ASH

inte

grat

ed in

to e

duca

tion

man

agem

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

syst

em

(EM

IS) a

nd h

ealt

h In

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

(HM

IS)

• N

umbe

r of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

whe

re W

ASH

is

inte

grat

ed in

to E

MIS

/HM

IS fo

r ef

fect

ive

mon

itorin

g22

• Pe

rcen

tage

of s

choo

ls a

nd h

ealth

ca

re fa

cilit

ies

that

con

sist

ently

re

port

on

WA

SH in

dica

tors

of t

he

EMIS

/HM

IS.

• A

naly

sis

of d

ata

from

man

agem

ent

info

rmat

ion

syst

ems

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

Su

stai

nabi

lity

Chec

ks

EMIS

and

HM

IS a

re in

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

s fo

r m

onito

ring

inte

rven

tions

in

sch

ools

and

hea

lth c

are

faci

litie

s.

11Re

gula

r ins

pect

ions

by

loca

l hea

lth

and

educ

atio

n of

fices

• N

umbe

r of s

choo

ls w

ith in

spec

tion

repo

rts.

• Ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s.•

Revi

ew o

f ins

pect

ion

docu

men

tatio

n w

here

av

aila

ble.

Sust

aina

bilit

y Ch

ecks

22.

Ref

er to

JM

P gu

idan

ce


B1 | ANNEX 2: REPORTING TEMPLATES

ANNEX 2: Reporting templates

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY CHECK A. RURAL WATER SUPPLY

METHODOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION MECHANISM COMMENTS

Number of water points assessed and sampling methodology

Please explain the data collection mechanism, the total number of water points selected and how they were selected

Household surveys Please explain the data collection mechanism, the total number of households selected and how they were selected

Interviews Please include the number of interviews carried out by type of respondent (user, service provider, local government, village chief, etc.)

Focus groups Please include the number of focus groups carried out and the methodology used

ANNEX 2: REPORTING TEMPLATES | B2

RESULTS FROM WATER POINTS

INDICATOR: ACTUAL QUALITY OF SERVICE

RESULT FOUND TARGET COMMENT

Percentage of water points functioning at the time of visit

Percentage of water points within a 30 minute round-trip (including queuing) to collect water

Average downtime of water points before repair as reported by users or the WASH committee ()

Average number of mechanical breakdowns per year

Percentage of water points that dried up for at least 1 month in the past year

Percentage of villages with a user per water point ratio that complies with national standards

Percentage of communities that have at least one functional water point per neighbourhood/community sub-division

Percentage of functioning water points meeting water quality standards at the time of monitoring

Percentage of water points with source and catchment protection activities in place

FACTOR: AFFECTING FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY COMMENT (FILL IN THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED)

Preliminary studies and planning conducted for siting of the water point to be adequate to the local context

Quality of design, construction, and quality control over the process

Local community participation in decision making throughout the process

Services are reliable, affordable and available when needed

Local water resources are properly managed and protected

Alignment with users’ preference

Unforeseen changes in demography, political situation, or environment at community level that critically affect the service

FACTOR: AFFECTING FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY COMMENT (FILL IN THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED)

Post-implementation support from local authorities/ administration/technical departments/ regulator in charge

Financing mechanism in place locally to ensure affordability and continuous service

Safety of water points

Effectiveness and capacity of water management committee to perform its tasks and ensure cost recovery of basic operation and maintenance

Accessibility, and quality of inputs and technicians for repairing water points when needed

Effective transparency and accountability mechanisms in place between users and/or water management committee and the service providers

RESULTS FROM INTERVIEWS AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS

What are the main challenges to sustainability of water points? (maximum three responses)

•

•

•

What are the solutions most commonly mentioned to improve the situation?

•

•

•

What is the perception of users’ level of satisfaction with the service?

•

•

•

What are the three main conclusions of the interviews and group discussions on the sustainability of water services?

•

•

•


RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONWHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO IMPROVE WITH THIS ACTION?

PRIORITY (HIGH/MEDIUM)

WHO HAS MAIN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONING THIS RECOMMENDATION

(Outline recommendations here)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY CHECK (CONTINUED)

B. RURAL SANITATION AND HAND WASHING

METHODOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION MECHANISM COMMENT

Number of communities assessed and sampling methodology

Please explain the data collection mechanism, the total number of communities selected and how they were selected

Household surveys Please explain the data collection mechanism, the total number of households selected and how they were selected


Focus groups Please include the number of focus groups carried out and the methodology used


RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY VISITS



Percentage of ODF-verified communities that still meet all the (national) ODF criteria

Percentage of ODF-verified communities where no evidence of open defecation can be found

Percentage of households with access to basic latrines (improved, not shared)

Percentage of households accessing shared latrines

Percentage of surveyed households that built a new latrine during the reporting period (whether or not the village was certified ODF) and that still use that latrine

Percentage of households that have re-built/upgraded their latrine in the last year

Percentage of households with functional hand washing facility with soap and water available in vicinity of latrine, and with evidence of usage

Percentage of household respondents reporting always washing their hands with soap or ash at specific critical times

FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY COMMENT (FILL IN THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED)

Presence of water to build, repair or clean the latrine

Resilient construction of latrines

Willingness to pay / prioritisation of sanitation among areas of expenditure

Affordability of standard household latrine that is being promoted in the area and of materials & services, taking into consideration the possible existence of in-kind or financing support for the poorest members of the community

Existence of a community-based body that is capable, dynamic, and supported by local leaders reinforcing social norms

Quality of triggering process

Quality of ODF verification process

Existence of post-triggering follow up support activities, and type & quality of these activities


FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY COMMENT (FILL IN THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED)

Availability/accessibility, appropriateness/attractiveness of sanitation materials, products and services to repair/maintain/improve the latrines

There is a functional monitoring system in place that triggers corrective action at lowest level


What are the main challenges to sustainable use of sanitation? (maximum three responses)

•

•

•

What are the solutions most commonly mentioned to improve the situation?

•

•

•

What is the perception of users’ level of satisfaction with their sanitation facilities?

•

•

•

What are the three main conclusions of the interviews and group discussions on the sustainability of sanitation and hand washing?

•

•

•

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONWHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO IMPROVE WITH THIS ACTION?





SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY CHECK – CONTINUED

C. WASH IN SCHOOLS AND HEALTH FACILITIES

METHODOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION MECHANISM COMMENT

Number of schools assessed and sampling methodology

Please explain the data collection mechanism, the total number of schools visited and how they were selected


Interviews with children Please include the number of interviews carried out by age group (specify gender)

Focus groups Please include the number of focus groups carried out and the methodology used (user, service provider, local government, village chief, etc.)

RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY VISITS



Percentage of schools / health facilities with sufficient number of water points that are able to provide water all year round, according to national standards

Percentage of schools / health facilities with existence of sufficient, improved, separated, functional, and hygienic/clean latrines according to national standards

Percentage of schools / health facilities having a sufficient number of functional hand washing stations with water and soap, and with evidence of usage


FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY

FACTOR COMMENT

Percentage of schools / health facilities with clear arrangements for operation and maintenance of water points

Percentage of schools / health facilities with clear arrangements for operation and maintenance of sanitation (operation and maintenance and cleaning is performed regularly and properly)

Percentage of schools / health facilities with allocated funds or funds collection system for operation and maintenance

Percentage of schools where teachers promote sanitation & hygiene practices in their lessons for each age group

Percentage of schools / health facilities with regular monitoring and inspection visits from the education / health Department

Percentage of schools / health facilities with clear arrangements for operation and maintenance of water points


What are the main challenges to sustainable use of WASH in schools? (maximum three responses)

•

•

•

What are the solutions most commonly mentioned to improve the situation of WASH in schools?

•

•

•

What is the perception of children’s satisfaction with their water facilities? •

•

•

What is the perception of children’s level of satisfaction with their sanitation facilities? (please include gender disaggregation)

•

•

•

What are the main conclusions of the interviews and group discussions on the sustainability of WASH in schools?

•

•

•


RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO IMPROVE WITH THIS ACTION?





ANNEX 3: TERMS OF REFERENCE | C1

ANNEX 3: Terms of reference for

WASH Sustainability Checks

1. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...................................................................................... C2

2. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................... C2

3. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................... C2

4. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... C4

Data Sources and data collection techniques ...................................................................... C4Sampling .............................................................................................................................. C4Data Collection protocol ....................................................................................................... C4Visualization and Presentation of Results ............................................................................ C5Development of national capacity ........................................................................................ C5

4. DELIVERABLES ....................................................................................................................... C5

5. QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................... C6

6. BIDDING PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................... C6

7. CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... C6

Inputs ................................................................................................................................... C6Payment Schedule ................................................................................................................ C7

8. SIGNATURES .................................................................................................................... C7

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. C7

C2 | ANNEX 3: TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION[Insert paragraphs on the programme description and targets, and/or on the national situation of sustainability assessment, and how the Sustanability Check exercise fits in]

The programme places particular emphasis on the post-programme sustainability of the interventions, which is among the most significant challenges faced by the sector. The objective of all UNICEF’s programming in this area is to strengthen and reinforce the accountability links between key sets of actors: policy-makers, service providers and the people that use those services, to improve the ways in which services are delivered. The sustainability of interventions is predominantly the responsibility of the partner Government, and UNICEF will support the Government to be able to meet its commitments.

In order to understand better how sustainable the WASH services are, UNICEF country office [insert country] has decided to carry out a ‘Sustainability Check’ to monitor the intermediate outcomes delivered by the programme.

These terms of reference (ToR) defines the scope and methodology of the Sustainability Check. All applicants are encouraged to read the ‘WASH Sustainability Checks Guidance’, by UNICEF, to propose a methodology aligned with the aims of UNICEF.

Sustainable WASH service in the context of this study is one that “creates the conditions for indefinite and resilient provision of water and sanitation services with certain agreed characteristics over time, without the need for continuous external support and without undermining the environmental systems on which they depend.”

2. OBJECTIVESThe Sustainability Check process will:

• Assess and analyse the current degree of sustainability of water and sanitation facilities and services in the area of study, and the sustainability of behavioural change and social norms newly created (for example the absence of open defecation, and practice of hand washing with soap);

• Assess the underlying factors influencing the likelihood and level of future sustainability; and

• Provide information on key sustainability challenges and provide recommendations to the Government, the sector partners and UNICEF on how actual sustainability and the underlying factors can be

improved to deliver more sustainable and resilient programme and sector outcomes.

3. SCOPE OF WORK

Thematic scope: The Sustainability Check will analyse the components of [Country Office to select from rural water, rural sanitation and hygiene, WASH in schools and WASH in health care facilities].

This Sustainability Check aims to provide data and analysis on the actual sustainability at the time of the visit and prospects for future sustainability. To achieve this, the framework of analysis distinguishes between ‘core service level indicators’, and underlying ‘factors’ that influence current and future sustainability of WASH services.


For each of the components, a list of compulsory core service level indicators to be calculated for the area of study was chosen. These indicators are:

DIMENSION CORE SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS FOR: RURAL WATER

Functionality 1.Percentage of water points functioning at the time of visit

Accessibility 2.Percentage of water points within a 30 minute round-trip (including queuing) to collect water

Reliability / continuity 3.Average downtime of water points before repair as reported by users or manager of water point (WASH committee)

Reliability / continuity 4.Average number of mechanical breakdowns per year

Reliability: seasonality 5.Percentage of water points that dried up for at least one month in the past year

Accessibility 6.Percentage of villages with a users per water point ratio that complies with national standards

Intra-village equity 7.Percentage of communities that have at least one functional water point per neighbourhood/community subdivision

Water quality 8.Percentage of functioning water points meeting water quality standards at the time of monitoring

Catchment protection 9. Percentage of water points with source and catchment protection activities in place

DIMENSION CORE SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS FOR: RURAL SANITATION

Maintenance of ODF status 1. Percentage of-ODF verified communities that still meet all the (national) ODF criteria (please specify national ODF criteria)

Maintenance of ODF status 2. Percentage of ODF-verified communities where no evidence of open defecation can be found

Coverage of sanitation facilities 3. Proportion/percentage of households with access to basic latrines (improved and not shared with other households)

Use of sanitation facilities 4. Percentage of households accessing shared latrines (compared to households having access to their own private latrine)

Use of sanitation facilities 5. Percentage of surveyed households that built a new latrine during the reporting period (whether or not the village was certified ODF), and that still use that latrine

Use of sanitation facilities 6. Percentage of households that have re-built/upgraded their latrine in the last year

Hand washing facility 7. Percentage of households with functional hand washing facility with soap and water available in vicinity of latrine and with evidence of usage

Hand washing facility 8. Percentage of households with functional hand washing facility with soap and water available in vicinity of latrine, and with evidence of usage

Hand washing practice 9. Percentage of household respondents reporting always washing their hands with soap or ash at specific critical times

DIMENSION CORE SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS FOR: WASH IN SCHOOLS AND HEALTH FACILITIES

Water at schools and health facilities

1.Percentage of schools / health facilities with sufficient number of water points that are able to provide water all year round, according to national standards

Sanitation at schools and health facilities

2. Percentage of schools / health facilities with existence of sufficient, improved, separated, functional, and hygienic/clean latrines according to national standards

Hand washing facilities at schools and health facilities

3.Percentage of schools / health facilities having a sufficient number of functional hand washing stations with water and soap with evidence of usage


In addition, the following sustainability factors and indicators have been chosen for each of the WASH sub-components:

[Provide list of factors for each sub-component chosen from Annex 1. Alternatively, ask the consultant to provide their suggestions on which factors to consider]

Geographical scope: [Describe the area that will be covered by the Sustainability Check: programme, district, region, etc. Provide at least information on the number of villages, water points, schools, and population living in the area of study]

4. METHODOLOGY

Data sources and data collection techniquesThere will be different data sources for each broad component of the programme as follows23:

• Water point/systems: a statistically representative sample of new/rehabilitated water points in the area of study, primarily used to assess water point functionality, reliability, continuity and seasonality of service, and factors influencing future sustainability.

• Community sanitation and hygiene: a statistically representative sample of communities that have been triggered would constitute the universe from which we would sample a number of households. Some of the communities will have been certified ODF, and some not. For the certified ODF, a number of extra indicators related to sustainability of ODF would apply - see Annex 1 for key indicators and factors.

• Schools and health centres: a statistically representative sample of schools and health centres to assess water availability from an improved source/point, whether toilets are improved and if they are single sex, the availability of handwashing facilities with soap and water, and functionality and sustainability factors that affect present and future results.

Additionally, there are a number of indicators that will

23. It is suggested that for most factors to be analysed, a triangulation of data is necessary. We would suggest to employ a mixture of field observation, interviews with key informants, and questionnaires for a representative sample of households. In some cases, it may also be appropriate to use focus groups and/or desk reviews of some documents including national guidelines for water quality, meeting records for WASH Comms and/or local councils, as well as agreements with service providers, etc.

All indicators can be reduced to a few sampling exercises: i) water points, ii) Households, iii) Villages, iv) Service providers (this one we suggest to do the same sample as the Water points, for practical reasons). Check above for tips and standard parameters to calculate sampling.

Note that for the Sustainability Check, the use of control groups is not required.

24. Cluster sampling’ is when the natural population groupings (villages, districts, etc.) are used as the basis from which to extract a sub-sample of households, water points, etc. (as appropriate). The sampling is then carried out in a staged process.

25. This is particularly important in instances where a list of households or water points within the cluster of sampling (village/district, etc.) is difficult to obtain.

require collecting information from the village and district governments.

The techniques for data collection are primarily field observations (both of hardware and behavioural outcomes) and interviews with household members and key informants (e.g. WASH committee members).

More complex sustainability factors might require a combination these techniques for data collection and also other complementary ones: for example, focus group discussions, collection of stories about a particular issue- or case studies (country offices to decide if they require some focus group discussions case studies or other; if so, to specify how many and where).

Sampling Cluster sampling is advised for this exercise24. The accepted confidence level are (90 or 95 percent level of confidence is usual) with a margin of error of (5% is usual). A method for random selection of households and facilities in the cluster should also be included in the technical proposal25.

Optional: The sample needs to be calculated to be statistically representative of the whole group, but also for each of the following categories: [insert categories here – for example : ethnic groups, income quintiles, gender].

Data collection protocol Before starting implementation, the team that will implement the Check should develop the ‘data collection protocol’. The sustainability indicators and factors described above are informed by data collected from the field. The information for each indicator is to be collected from specific sources (water points, households, key informants, schools and health institutions) and through specific techniques (through observation and interviews). The specific information required from each source will need to be aggregated in a data collection protocol. This will include the collection of questions to be administered to the different stakeholders, the observations to be carried


out at water points and households, and any other data to be collected. This protocol will be the document that enumerators will carry to the field.

In all cases, it is necessary to collect some additional information that allows for basic analysis by, for example, age, type of water point, or implementing agency. UNICEF Guidelines on Sustainability Checks provides a list of basic information to consider in the data collection, in addition to the information required to calculate the values of the indicators.

The data collection protocol will also include how the data is going to be collected (paper, audio, smartphones, etc.) and stored, how data will be cleaned and how a database will be generated.

The data collection protocol will need approval before starting the field data collection.

Interviews and interactions with people in communities must be conducted according to national legal and ethical norms for study subjects. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ascertain these and to conduct themselves in the field accordingly.

The contractor will use best practices, including appropriate statistical techniques, to analyse the data gathered.

The analysis of results of Sustainability Check will be carried out against the targets agreed for each indicator. The analysis should also be enhanced with analysis of the available information from previous checks or other monitoring or programme documents.

Visualisation and presentation of resultsThe results of the sustainability check should be presented in a report with illustrative graphs, and present general realistic recommendations and specific recommendations where relevant to the Government, to the sector and to UNICEF. The report should provide a feasible number of actionable recommendations. The report should contain an executive summary, following the structure provided in “UNICEF Guidance for Sustainability Checks in WASH”. In this report, the values calculated for each indicator should be compared with the target for that indicator. If target values have not been agreed nationally or at the program level, these will be discussed with the consultant. Consultants can propose target values according to international practice.

In addition to the simplified report template, graphic representation of results are encouraged to visualise the

findings, ease a trend analysis and action against results.

The results of the Sustainability Check will be communicated to stakeholders both in report form and as a presentation to relevant government bodies, UNICEF and other stakeholders (see Deliverables section below) to support national efforts to improve sustainability of the WASH sector. Thus the presentation of results should be treated as a distinct component of the scope of work, on par in importance with the other components.

Development of national capacity The Sustainability Check team should contain at least one staff member from an institution in the country where the Sustainability Check is conducted.

The consultants will conduct at least three sessions with national stakeholders to explain the detailed methodology of the Sustainability Check. The aim of these sessions will be to create additional capacity within the country to understand and conduct Sustainability Checks. Participants from different levels of government, research institutions, NGOs and civil society will be invited for these working sessions. The consultants will propose the content, location and target groups for these sessions. Alternatively, the Country Office can be more precise on who to invite and where to invite.

4. DELIVERABLESThe consultancy will produce the following deliverables:

1. Draft inception report: including work plan, the detailed methodology and data collection protocol, and a table of contents for the Sustainability Check report (page limit – 15 pages).

2. Final inception report: modified according to comments from UNICEF (page limit – 15 pages).

3. Draft Sustainability Check Report: full report, including the Executive Summary, the main findings and recommendations, and an annex with the database of data gathered (page Limit – 40 pages).

4. Feedback sessions to main stakeholders of the areas where information was gathered (at least one session per region, to be defined depending on the scope).

5. Capacity development sessions, with selected partners and other stakeholders, to explain in detail the methodology used and data collection and analysis processes. (to be defined further depending on the context)

6. Sustainability Check report: full report, modified as per comments from UNICEF and government stakeholders (page limit – 40 pages).


7. PowerPoint presentation: a stand-alone presentation and a ‘Summary Briefing Note’ that can be used by UNICEF and Government to present results during WASH sector reviews and similar national events (limit – 20 slides for PowerPoint presentation and page limit of five pages for the briefing note).

8. Presentation of findings and recommendations to be delivered by the consultant at a meeting to UNICEF, Government and other stakeholders (at least one, to be decided depending on the context and scope of the Sustainability Check.)

A tentative timeline has to be presented by the consultant. The total available time from contract signature to final delivery of all outputs is (specify number of months).

5. QUALIFICATIONS[to be adapted by the Country Office]

The following minimum requirements are necessary for a successful bid.

• Technical qualifications of team members: appropriate educational qualifications both in the WASH sector and in the area of monitoring and evaluation; including at least 10 years’ experience in the WASH sector, and at least 5 years’ experience in the area of monitoring and evaluation;

• Documented experience in social science research including conducting in-depth interviews and focus group discussions;

• Specific experience: specific experience in designing and conducting field based WASH sector surveys, , is an important requirement;

• Country experience: the team leader and/or other team members should ideally have experience working in the country; field survey staff and their supervisors must be country-based; at least one of the members of the field survey staff must be national;

• Experience working with UNICEF, UN agencies and bilateral agencies is desirable;

• Leadership: successful bidders will identify the team leader for the contract, with experience acting in that capacity;

• General qualifications: appropriate team members must have language proficiency consonant with their duties (English/French/others and a good knowledge of local languages); and

• References: the consulting firm should provide references with a focus on references from clients for which similar work carried out.

6. BIDDING PROPOSAL[to be adapted by the Country Office]

The bidding proposal will consist of a technical proposal and a financial proposal, with the following components:

Technical proposal• A methodology including proposed data collection

protocol, time schedule, date of deliverables proposed, analytical framework, and quality assurance and control to fulfil the ToR;

• The detailed framework of the necessary logistical arrangements, in particular concerning the field travel;

• Description of the survey team with brief note on the role of each team member, CVs of the proposed key personnel, including the list of relevant experience signed by the professional and his representative;

• Organisational background and list of relevant assignments carried out by the firm;

• Evaluation reference letters from previous related works carried out by the consultant to credible national and international organisations for similar work; and

• Copies of relevant documents proving the organisation’s registration in country.

Financial proposal• Remuneration fees of the personnel, and assorted

miscellaneous costs; and• Expected reimbursable expenses.

7. CONDITIONS [to be adapted by the Country Office]

Inputs• All necessary inputs for conducting the assignment

(transport, equipment, allowances, etc.) will be provided by the company contracted. The consulting firm/team will be responsible for all logistics arrangements associated with the completion of the contract. UNICEF country offices will not provide assistance in the areas of international travel arrangements, visas, banking/cash services, or office space and equipment (including computers, photocopiers).

• Consultant should have appropriate travel documents and health insurances as required.

• The consultant will not receive any other benefits apart from that stated in the contract.

• UNICEF will not provide any type of payments for accidental death and dismemberment and accidental medical coverage, health insurance and any other taxes that the consultant may have to pay.

• UNICEF will not provide secretarial help to the consultants or access to photocopiers and computers/laptops to carry out the project work.


Payment schedule[to be adapted by the Country Office]Payment in respect of the exercise will be effected as follows:

• 30% on approval of the inception report• 20% after conducting capacity development and

feedback sessions • 30% on submission of draft Sustainability Check report• 20% on approval of final Sustainability Check Report

and after presentation of results

8. SIGNATURES[to be completed by CO]

Annexes to ToR

NOTE: These annexes can be found in UNICEF “WASH Sustainability Checks – guidance to design and implement sustainability monitoring”.

Annex 1. Table of core service level indicators and sustainability factors

Annex 2. Reporting template

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

Documents

GUIDANCE TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY … · guidance: the key findings are summarised in Box 1. However, in some cases, transition is being made to a wider national and