Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Overview
This note summarises the behaviour change elements of the projects
being implemented in the Civil Society Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
(WASH) Fund, and sets them within a broader sectoral context. Information in this note draws heavily on the data amassed by the
Monitoring Evaluation and Review Panel (MERP) through monitoring visits
as well as regular contact with the participating Civil Society
Organisations (CSO) and reviewing project progress reports.
What do we mean by Behaviour Change?
Most WASH programs have improved health as their high level objective or goal. The traditional way to achieve this has been to increase access to
water and sanitation infrastructure and services—notably water supplies,
toilets with handwashing facilities and waste management services—essentially addressing issues of supply. However, implicit in this approach
is the assumption that by increasing access—or making facilities and
services available—people will use them. Whilst undoubtedly true in many instances, experience has shown that this link is not universal—
particularly when it comes to sanitation facilities. For many people the
link between drinking unclean water and sickness is clear, but the link between defecating in the open and sickness is less so. Thus demand for
clean water is nearly always present whereas demand for toilets often
needs to be stimulated. Triggering this demand is what we mean by
sanitation behaviour change.
Having and using a toilet alone, however, is not sufficient to achieve the desired health benefits. If only some household members use the toilet
but others still defecate in the open (for example children or the elderly),
then everyone is still being exposed to pathogens from flies, animals and general contact. If people do not wash their hands with soap after
defecating, before preparing and eating food and at other critical times,
FAST FACTS
• Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is the dominant approach to sanitation behavior
change. In a number of countries, Fund projects use variations adapted to the local context
• A number of innovative approaches are applied across the Fund, including Healthy Islands, SuperAmma, output-based aid and
sanitation marketing
• Australian Red Cross (ARC)
• Concern Universal
• Habitat for Humanity (HfH)
• International Development Enterprises (iDE)
• International Rescue Committee (IRC)
• Live & Learn Environmental Education
• Plan International Australia (Plan)
• Save the Children Australia (SCA)
• SNV Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV)
• Thrive Networks (Thrive)
• WaterAid
• Welthungerhilfe
• World Vision Australia
Behaviour Change M&E Note 8 July 2016
FUND CSOs
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
then faecal matter and its pathogens will still be
ingested. Ensuring the facilities are correctly used by
everyone is what we mean by hygiene behaviour change.
The imperative to improve community health in WASH programs has tended to lead to behaviour
change approaches that aim to educate people about
the link between improved sanitation and improved health. Techniques such as Participatory Hygiene and
Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) and Participatory
Health and Hygiene Education (PHHE) are examples of this. However, providing information about health
risks alone has not led to the widespread changes in
behaviour that are needed to have the desired impacts on community health, and so more recently
there has been increasing attention on using other
motivators, such as pride, disgust, shame, sense of belonging or social status, to trigger a demand for
improved sanitation and hygiene behaviours1. The
Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)2 approach had early success using shame and disgust as
motivators but more recently there has been a greater
emphasis on the more positive motivators. Whatever process is used, the aim is to lead to change in the
social norms that relate to sanitation and hygiene
behaviour practices that are permanent and
widespread.
The only hope of achieving widespread coverage is to
invest in behaviour change programs that can go to
scale. Some CSO programs aim to achieve scale by leveraging off existing government processes, whilst
others try to demonstrate an effective approach and
promote the idea of it being adopted and replicated
by government (or other programs).
Promo on of Sanita on Behaviour Change
Promotion of sanitation focusses on increasing demand for sanitation infrastructure. Barriers to
uptake of sanitation include: lack of knowledge or
understanding of the health benefits of improved sanitation; social and cultural norms; a lack of
technical skills; availability of materials; or cost3.
There are a range of approaches being applied across the Fund (see Figure 1), and all are attempting to
address one or more of these barriers, using a range
of incentives and processes. These are discussed
briefly in the sections that follow.
Figure 1: Sanitation approaches being used in the Fund
1A Val Curtis, Keynote presentation, WASH Conference, Brisbane 2011.
2Including variants such as School Led Total Sanitation (SLTS).
3This list is not comprehensive but covers the main tangible barriers that most of the approaches seek to overcome. For example, cultural norms can present significant challenges to programs promoting latrine use, however these are very context–dependant and the more generalised approaches are tailored to account for these. 2
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
Experience has shown that provision of information alone will not convince everyone to end open
defecation and adopt latrine use permanently.
Recognising that if some community members still practice open defecation, then everyone in the vicinity
will be exposed to pathogens, CLTS aims to tap into
other (more primal) motivations such as disgust and shame to drive people towards latrine use. The tools
and techniques highlight the fact that as an individual
you cannot fully protect yourself against the behaviour of your neighbours and so collective action
is needed.
CLTS is by far the most common sanitation behaviour
change approach being used in the Fund. The 16
projects using CLTS or a variant collectively target 1.04 million people (42%) for improved sanitation, or
1.53 million people (51%) if access to basic
unimproved sanitation is included.
In a number of countries CLTS or a variant has been
adopted as the national approach and organisations working in sanitation in these countries are required
to comply. In 2015, the Government of Bangladesh
declared the country open defecation free (ODF) following a concerted CLTS campaign over a number
of years. Similarly, the Government of Nepal has an
ambitious target for the country to become ODF by 2017 and places strict controls over where and how
organisations wishing to work in sanitation can
operate. Both ARC’s and SNV’s projects in Nepal align with the National Government’s Sanitation Master
Plan, despite challenges in some areas such as along
the border with India where SNV is operating. The subsidy approaches being applied in neighbouring
India cause difficulties in applying non-subsidy
programs in Nepal, and the government (in conjunction with the CSOs) has responded by looking
at innovations such as Parliamentarian-Led Total
Sanitation and Women-Led Total Sanitation, and other incentives besides subsidies to encourage
communities to become ODF.
In Malawi, Plan and Concern Universal are both doing CLTS in communities and School-Led Total Sanitation
in schools and work district wide through government
change agents including Health Surveillance Assistants. Both also include a focus on market
centres as part of a push to achieve universal
coverage and get their respective districts declared ODF by 2017 in accordance with the national plan to
declare the whole country ODF by 2021.
Similarly, some countries have adapted CLTS to their
own contexts and development goals, and the Fund
projects in those countries generally align with them.
Examples include:
PAKSI in Timor-Leste blends CLTS with the
national government’s community action planning
(CAP) process for engaging communities in WASH.
WaterAid apply PAKSI in their target communities, and combine it with provision of a water supply,
expecting 3,960 additional people to be living in
ODF communities as a result. Government health staff are supported to monitor progress towards
this goal;
The Community Approach to Total Sanitation
(CATS) approach in Zimbabwe is prescriptive
about technology choices4. This is counter to the pure CLTS approach and may not be affordable for
poor households, so includes a subsidy for the
poorest households. Welthungerhilfe are applying this in their target areas and are working to ensure
177,000 additional people live in ODF
communities;
Pakistan Approach to Total Sanitation (PATS) is
being implemented by Plan and IRC. This approach fits into a broader environmental health
focus and is part of a district wide program to
achieve ODF by 2019—and the approach is very much focussed on supporting government service
delivery. PATS includes the promise of new
infrastructure in communities that are declared
4Only pour flush/flush toilets or the Blair VIP toilet are permitted.
Community‐Led Total Sanita on
3
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
ODF as a further incentive. Together these two projects aim to have 382,000 more people in ODF
communities; and
Similarly, in Indonesia, Plan is supporting the
Government of Indonesia’s STBM (Community-
Based Total Sanitation) approach. This approach consists of five pillars: achieving ODF;
handwashing with soap; treatment and storage of
water in the home; solid and liquid waste management. Plan’s project is initially funding
delivery themselves through government change
agents before fully handing over the process (including funding) for the final two years of
implementation. This project alone will benefit an
additional 302,000 people.
Health Educa on Approach
The traditional way to address the lack of knowledge
of the health benefits of using improved sanitation
was through education or awareness raising. Various methodologies have been developed for use at the
community level, such as PHAST, which is a seven
step process for identifying poor sanitation in a community and collectively agreeing on a plan to
address it. Both ARC in Lesotho and SCA in Myanmar
are using (or have used) PHAST in their projects.
All six projects in the Pacific use PHAST in some form or other, which reflects the strong cultural acceptance
of the technique in that region. Live & Learn are
applying what they call a blend of PHAST and CLTS which involves the use CLTS-type triggering tools
followed-up with the systematic use of the PHAST
process. Live & Learn have developed a reversible flip-chart with PHAST on one side and CLTS on the other
to be used in villages (see Figure 2). Several of
WaterAid’s partners in PNG were applying a similar mix but more recently have reverted back to pure
PHAST.
Subsidy Approaches5
One way of overcoming cost as a barrier to sanitation uptake is to provide subsidies (full or partial). Projects
providing subsidies for sanitation hardware generally
offer them alongside some sort of health education program such as Participatory Health and Hygiene
Education, and cover the cost of purchased materials;
labour and local materials then form the household
contribution.
Seven of the Fund’s projects are providing direct subsidies to households for toilets, collectively aiming
to provide improved sanitation to around 284,000
people (roughly 12% of the total Fund sanitation target). SCA in Myanmar take a tract-wide approach
Figure 2: Live & Learn’s blend of PHAST and CLTS
5The issue of offering subsidies for sanitation is somewhat controversial, with advocates of approaches such as CLTS arguing that subsi-dies mask true demand for improved sanitation. Proponents counter with the argument that non-subsidy approaches lead to unsustaina-ble outcomes. It is not possible to fully explore this issue in this note, but suffice to say that the argument is evolving and both sides are increasingly acknowledging the need for some type of subsidised approach – smart subsidies – for the poorest of the poor.
4
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
and provide subsidies to ensure all households within the tract get a pour-flush toilet6. In Lesotho, ARC
provide materials and training to masons to construct
latrines, and in Bangladesh, Habitat for Humanity
provide subsidies for upgrading of basic latrines.
A more nuanced approach to subsidies is to target them towards poor households only, which requires a
way of identifying this demographic. This can be done
by communities themselves, and in some countries, such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the
governments formally identify poor households.
Thrive’s three projects use this mechanism to provide various targeted subsidies, generally paid to poor
households as incentive payments (or rebates) if they
invest upfront in hygienic latrines. This approach, known as output-based aid (OBA), is discussed further
in the next section. In Zimbabwe, Welthungerhilfe has
adopted the government’s official sanitation approach—Community Approach to Total Sanitation
(CATS)—which includes subsidies for the poorest 20%
of households.
Several other CSOs are exploring the idea of smart (or
indirect) subsidies in recognition of the difficulty of reaching the poorest quintile. For example, iDE in
Cambodia is testing market sensitivity to subsidies to
reach the poorest once their SanMark approach has achieved around 80% sanitation coverage in the
target provinces.
Other Approaches
Within the Fund there are a number of projects taking alternative or innovative approaches to engagement
with communities to promote uptake of latrines and
other sanitation infrastructure. Sanitation marketing uses marketing approaches to develop both supply
and demand sides of sanitation service delivery, with
supply chain development as a complementary activity to demand creation. For example, in
Cambodia and Vietnam, iDE has developed a custom
approach to stimulate demand, as part of their broad sanitation marketing program. Sales agents use what
they call sight sellers at village events and door-to-
door. Sight sellers are flipcharts with illustrations of typical daily events, designed around triggers such as
disgust, security/safety, affordability, pride and other
triggers they have identified. The key to success is that people are immediately connected to suppliers
once demand has been triggered. iDE project that an
additional 900,000 people will have improved
sanitation as a result of their project.
In PNG, both World Vision and WaterAid use the Healthy Islands approach (see Box 1), which is a broad
framework for engaging communities to take
responsibility for their own development outcomes The healthy islands approach does not have its own
set of tools for engaging with communities and so
Box 1: Healthy Islands Approach The Healthy Islands concept is a holistic approach to community development that aims to foster a sense of ownership of development processes and health outcomes amongst communities. It was adopted by the Government of PNG in 1995 and has since been incorporated into the National Policy on Health Promotion.
The vision of a Healthy Island Community is one where: Children are nurtured in body and mind
Environments invite learning and leisure
People work and age with dignity
Ecological balance is a source of pride
The ocean which sustains us is protected.
The concept includes consideration of 16 elements, several of which are relevant to WASH programs. These are: adequate water supply and sanitation facilities; nutrition; waste management; lifestyle and quality of life issues; promotion of primary health care; ecological sustainability; environmental and occupational health.
In practice, communities are facilitated to make a series of improvements to their villages and prioritise development activities that lead to health and well-being improvements. Communities that achieve certain criteria can then become beneficiaries of development investments, such as water supplies. The exact mode of implementation is up to the implementing organisation.
6At the time of writing SCA are phasing out their subsidy approach and are looking to introduce a savings and loans schemes to help households finance sanitation investments. 5
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
CSOs adapt it to fit their own programmatic goals.
Sanitation and hygiene fit nicely into this framework.
Thrive in Lao PDR are championing their results-based OBA approach to provide incentive payments
to poor households once they have invested in a
latrine. OBA is not a stand-alone approach and is effectively a financing mechanism that works as an
incentive to encourage households to invest in toilets.
It leverages off other programs and initiatives - such as the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program’s
CLTS work. Similarly in Vietnam, Thrive’s OBA
approach complements the low-interest loans for household latrine construction being made available
to poor households by the Vietnam Bank for Social
Policies.
Lastly, in Bhutan where access to basic sanitation is
high, SNV concluded that CLTS was not appropriate and have developed an approach called Community
Development for Health. This uses elements of
‘appreciative enquiry’ and ‘self-awareness’ tools to motivate households to upgrade latrines and improve
hygiene behaviours. They are also exploring the
application of the SuperAmma7 approach. Both of these approaches are discussed further in the next
section.
Promo on of Improved Hygiene Behaviour Change
In recognition of the importance of improved hygiene behaviours for community health, the Fund design
mandated that every project should have a hygiene
component. As with sanitation, the widespread benefits of improved hygiene behaviours are only fully
realised if they are universal, and yet to date there are
no widely hailed techniques for triggering hygiene behaviour change at scale. The efficacy of the
plethora of techniques being applied across the
sector depends on context and very often the facilitation skills of those tasked with promoting
improved hygiene. To better understand the context
in which they work, a number of projects are involved with studies into behaviour change triggers in order to
inform their approaches:
WaterAid in Mozambique is collaborating with the
Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo to
investigate behaviour change triggers in peri-
urban settings;
ARC in conjunction with Latrobe University in
Australia completed formative research on
obstacles to sustained hygiene behaviour change
in Nepal;
SNV in Bhutan, in collaboration with the Ministry of
Health, have undertaken formative research8 to develop an evidence base for their behaviour
change communication strategies; and
WaterAid in PNG are collaborating with the
International WaterCentre to investigate infant
faeces management.
In addition to formal studies, many of the Fund
projects are engaged in either action research or targeted knowledge exchange or learning activities
aimed at better understanding how to influence
behaviour. In March 2015, SNV in Bhutan convened a regional workshop on Behaviour Change
iDE’s Sight Seller Approach. Photo: Paul Tyndale-Biscoe
7The SuperAmma approach is a communication campaign based on behavioural science research designed to encourage the habit of washing hands with soap. (www.superamma.org).
8entitled ‘National Formative Study on Sanitation and Hygiene Behaviours’ 6
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
Communication (BCC) which led to the development of a set of guidelines for its wider Sustainable
Sanitation and Hygiene for All program. Plan in
Pakistan has developed a BCC strategy, framework, and manual, to guide and inform their program and
the government’s PATS approach more broadly. iDE
has conducted some BCC action research which they have shared through a blog entitled “Results from
Behaviour Change Pilot”9, and ARC Lesotho and World
Vision PNG have both documented case studies of
their BCC work10.
Figure 3 illustrates the variety of behaviour change approaches being employed within the Fund.
Community based approaches and hygiene
promotion in schools dominate the approaches, but within these broad categories there is further
variation.
School Hygiene Promo on, Child‐to‐Child Approaches
Recognising that it is easier to influence the behaviour of children than adults, and that learned behaviours
in childhood will often last a lifetime, many projects
are deliberately targeting school children. This generally links to school sanitation initiatives
focussed on provision of infrastructure, but in some
cases is embedded in sanitation behaviour change
approaches such as School Led Total Sanitation.
A reasonably common approach is to form and/or support school health clubs as a mechanism for
engaging with school children for behaviour change.
Overall the general purpose of the clubs are common to all projects—identifying child leaders and using
them to reach a greater number of children through
child-to-child or peer learning. However, the specific focus of the clubs varies depending on the
circumstances. Some examples include:
In PNG, Fiji and the Solomon Islands Live & Learn’s
projects have formed school health clubs as a
vehicle to advocate for WASH facilities as well as
support child-to-child or peer learning; and
Plan in Pakistan and HfH are supporting teachers
to establish clubs in schools and leveraging this to
also promote improved hygiene at home – an
approach called ‘diffusion of innovation’.
A number of projects have adapted or developed
specific information, education and communication materials for school health clubs to use, including
World Vision in Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe and all of the
Live & Learn projects. Welthungerhilfe in Zimbabwe is using PHHE materials in schools, market places,
clinics and communities.
Several projects use theatre and performance to
promote hygiene messages. In PNG and Fiji, Live &
Learn has an ‘Arts for Advocacy’ technique they
Figure 3: Hygiene promotion approaches being used in the Fund (number of projects)
9http://blog.ideorg.org/2014/11/19/results-from-behavior-change-pilot/
10Mathabang Case Study (ARC Lesotho) and Murr Lagoon [Healthy Islands] Success Story (World Vision PNG). 7
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
promote through school health clubs, using drama,
song, dance etc. to promote improved hygiene messaging. World Vision in Zimbabwe is also doing
this, and in Myanmar SCA is training cadres of children
(called peer children) who use song and dance to pass on hygiene messages to others. In Nepal, SNV is
engaging amateur theatre groups to perform hygiene
‘street dramas’, and in Malawi, Concern Universal is engaging local theatre groups to deliver key hygiene
messages through drama.
Plan in Malawi engaged a local CBO to facilitate
menstrual hygiene management11 in schools using
mothers’ groups.
Working at a more institutional level, Live & Learn in
PNG, Fiji and Vanuatu is attempting to embed and strengthen hygiene promotion and messaging in
school curricula by engaging with the relevant
Education Ministries. Live & Learn is also looking at supporting the development of BCC approaches in
schools with the Ministry of Education in Fiji.
Drawing on ‘Nudge Theory’, Thrive is exploring an
innovative approach to encourage handwashing in
schools based on work by Save the Children in Bangladesh. The approach uses visual cues that draw
children from the latrines to the handwashing
stations (see Box 2). The concept was recently awarded first place in the Fund-supported Civil
Society Innovation Award, announced at the WASH
Futures Conference 2016 in Brisbane.
Community Health Clubs
In addition to health clubs in schools, a number of
projects also support these groups at the community
level. Along with the peer children mentioned above, SCA in Myanmar also work with Peer Mothers who are
groups of women working on a voluntary basis
carrying out house-to-house visits to promote key hygiene messages. In Zimbabwe, World Vision are
forming and supporting community health clubs to
promote good hygiene behaviour in their
communities through drama and household visits. A hygiene street drama in Nepal's Terai region. Photo: Bruce Bailey
Box 2: ‘Nudge Theory’ Innovation
Save the Children Bangladesh, in conjunction with the University of Oklahoma, have developed an inexpensive set of cues—or nudges—to encourage handwashing after toilet use. School toilets, handwashing facilities and pathways were painted with bright colours to guide children from the latrines to the handwashing station. No other educational material or motivational messages were included. Handwashing rates increased from 4% to 68% immediately and rose to 74% after two weeks, remaining at that level at six weeks, suggesting that the improved behaviour was permanent.
Details at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26784210
11Menstrual hygiene management is discussed further in the M&E Note 9: Gender and Social Inclusion. 8
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
Village or Community Health Workers
In many countries the government provides a person
responsible for provision of basic or front-line health services in communities. These may be paid
government employees, but quite often are
volunteers with formal recognition of their role as
reward.
Most of the projects working at community level do so through these people, known variously as Village or
Community Health Workers, Health Extension – or
Surveillance – Officers or Assistants. Some projects provide their own – for example ARC in Nepal have
engaged Community Motivators (Red Cross
volunteers) to conduct household visits and run
campaigns.
Other examples of projects working with Village
Health Workers include:
Support to Health Assistants being provided by
ARC in Lesotho;
Concern Universal and Plan in Malawi who both
work through Health Surveillance Assistants—
frontline government staff based in local health
posts tasked (amongst other things) with health promotion. The projects provide further support to
increase the efficacy of their work. At the village
level, natural leaders (often village heads) work with the Assistants to promote health and hygiene
within their villages;
Plan in Pakistan are encouraging the government
to recruit female community motivators to
increase the level of engagement with women
community members; and
In Vietnam, there are quasi-government bodies
Nepal Red Cross Society Community Motivators participating in a community WASH meeting. Photo: Bruce Bailey
9
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
down to commune level, including the Women’s Union and the Centre for Preventive Medicine. All
three of the Fund’s Vietnam based projects work
with these organisations to promote sanitation. Plan has developed information, education and
communication materials to supplement those
provided under Vietnam’s National Target Program and has integrated hygiene promotion
into the CLTS program being implemented
through the Women’s Union.
A general issue with volunteerism is whether or not it
can be sustained beyond the life of the project. Volunteers often complain about the lack of resources
to do their jobs. CSOs are often able to provide
resources, but this begs the question of how this support can be provided in an ongoing way after
project completion. It is generally recognised that
paying stipends, giving bicycles or uniforms or providing other resources and incentives is not
sustainable and leads to raised expectations that
cannot be met. When the support stops, so do the volunteers. Providing support to paid government
frontline staff (if available) can overcome this. SNV’s
Community Development for Health approach is an example of this. The project provides training to
government Health Assistants based in Basic Health
Units in a range of participatory tools and assessment techniques, who then apply these in the communities
for which they are responsible. The approach is
embedded in government systems and is likely to
persist beyond the project implementation period.
Other Approaches
Working through child clubs or village health workers
is quite intensive and presents problems when trying to go to scale – as such, they are examples of
approaches that have high exposure but potentially
limited reach. The flip side of this are approaches that have high reach but low exposure, such as mass
media campaigns through television or radio (for
example Live & Learn in Fiji) and road shows (Plan in Indonesia and Welthungerhilfe in Zimbabwe).
Generally, the efficacy of these is questionable and so
all projects using these approaches have them as supplementary activities to the more intensive
approaches.
Health Assistant facilitating a Community Development for Health workshop in Bhutan. Photo: Bruce Bailey
10
Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund
Capitalising on global campaigns is also common— with several projects specifically contributing to
global WASH days such as Global Handwashing Day
(World Vision in Sri Lanka) and Menstrual Hygiene Day
(Live & Learn in PNG).
Going Beyond ODF – Progress Towards the SDGs
The Fund was conceived during the last years of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) period and the
MDGs formed the framework within which most
projects were designed. For sanitation this meant a focus on reducing the number of people without
access to improved latrines – or simply increasing the
number of toilets. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set a far more ambitious target for
WASH, aiming for universal access to water, sanitation
and hygiene for all by 2030. This goes beyond just access to toilets and other facilities but means that
facilities are accessible to all, are used by everyone,
and that the resulting faecal sludge is properly
managed.
Some projects within the Fund have sought to incorporate these into their approaches, either
through their own foresight or that of the
governments of the countries in which they work. In Pakistan, for example, the government has set the
approach to sanitation within a broader
environmental health focus, which aligns with the SDGs. Both the IRC’s and Plan’s projects there are
supporting the government’s national approach by
targeted support through demonstration, capacity building and institutional strengthening. In the
Punjab, where Plan’s project operates, the provincial
government has set the ambitious goal of total
sanitation by 2019.
In Nepal the government has shown strong leadership in the sector and firmly directs how international
CSOs and other organisations operate. The country is
projected to achieve 100% ODF during 2017 and has now set its sights on total sanitation. ARC’s and SNV’s
projects are firmly aligned with this agenda.
Lastly, in Indonesia the government has defined its
approach to promotion of sanitation, STBM, as discussed above. Plan’s project there is providing
support to government in the target province (Nusa
Tenggara Timur) to facilitate the roll-out of the
approach.
Summary
Whilst globally there is much debate around which approaches are better or more effective than others,
no attempt has been made here to draw such
conclusions—and at mid-point it is certainly too early to do this. The examples presented show the large
variety of approaches being taken within the Fund
and the key lesson is that CSOs need to focus on what works most effectively within their operating context.
This requires well designed monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) frameworks, solid processes for building and sharing the evidence-base and ensuring
the evidence informs strategies and approaches.
Over the remaining period of implementation, the
MERP will conduct a second round of monitoring visits
and through the Fund’s performance assessment arrangements will further build the Fund’s activity
information database. Although the scope of these
visits is still being defined they are likely to focus on: how the Fund has improved the performance of key
WASH sector actors; impacts and long term benefits
for target populations; sustainability and exit plans; contributions to knowledge and learning including
documenting lessons learned; impact of knowledge
and learning activities under the Fund; and factors contributing to the success or poor achievement of
project outcomes.
11
About the Fund
The Civil Society Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Fund is a $103 million investment by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
that is supporting 13 Civil Society Organisations to implement 29 WASH projects in 19 countries throughout Africa, Asia and the Pacific over four
years to 2018.
The overarching goal of the Fund is to improve public health by increasing access to safe water and sanitation. The objective is to enhance the health
and quality of life of the poor and vulnerable by improving sustainable
access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene.
Authors
This M&E Note was prepared by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Review
Panel (MERP) for the Civil Society WASH Fund. MERP members are:
Bruce Bailey, Team Leader ([email protected])
Paul Crawford, M&E Specialist ([email protected])
Paul Tyndale-Biscoe, WASH Specialist ([email protected])
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Anne Joselin, Robyne Leven, Bronwyn Powell and Amanda
Morgan for valuable comments and edits.
Citation:
Civil Society WASH Fund (2016) M&E Note 8: Behaviour Change