Scaling up and Sustaining Outcomes...Scaling up Rural Sanitation Outcomes Toilet Construction is...
Transcript of Scaling up and Sustaining Outcomes...Scaling up Rural Sanitation Outcomes Toilet Construction is...
Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan
Scaling up and Sustaining Outcomes
Identifying the Goal
❧ Sanitation = habit ❧ Toilet construction is a means to an end ❧ Even if few use a toilet, all are at risk, unless
a community is ODF
Scaling up Behavior Change
Scaling up Rural Sanitation Outcomes
Toilet Construction is means to an
end
Coverage has scaled up rapidly….
Source: MDWS Online Monitoring, Jan 2013
3 states at 100%
10 states at 76-100%
12 states at 50-75%
5 states at <50%
National average is +70%
Scaling up equals Sustainability? Results from MDWS study of NGP sustainability….
All India average for 12 states
Below Average Performer
Average Performer
High Performer
Source: MDWS 2010
One Program, Different Outcomes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8.3 13
.6
14.8
15.3 18.6
20.1
22.9 26
.7
29.3
31.9
32.7
34.2
34.9 40
.4
41.7
44.2 48
.7 55 55.7
56.9
57.7 61
.5 67.5 71
.9
72.6 77
.7 84.6
85.1
87.1
87.7 94
.4
Perc
ent
5 states at 76-99%
3 states at 50-75%
22 states at <50%
Nil @ 100%
Source: Census 2011
What explains the difference in
performance?
Sustainability does not come after toilet construction is completed – it starts
with entry into a community
Quality of the process by which NBA is implemented at scale drives Outcomes
achieved and their sustainability
How to Measure Quality of Processes?Processes adopted by a district to implement TSC are grouped into 3 Components with scores to each process
Catalyzing
Strategy
Institutions
Finance
Delivering
Demand
Supply
Scale
Sustaining
Subsidy
Monitoring
Incentives
30
10
40
15
14
11
30
13
6
11
10
10
Results: Sample States Average Score on Quality of Processes = 56 on 100
Statistically strong +ve correlation found b/w quality of process and usage
❧ As quality of processes improves, hh toilet usage is found to increase in the sample of 56 districts
❧ Districts that implement TSC/NBA Guidelines in letter and spirit perform well
❧ Districts that implement program as a target driven construction drive perform poorly
High Performers have done this!
ODF Communities
Strategy => Collective behavior change
Strong political/administrative buy-in
Dedicated Institutional Arrangement
Build Capacity to facilitate BCC
Create demand for safe sanitation
Facilitate supply linkage
Ince
ntiv
es fo
r O
utco
mes
Mon
itor
Colle
ctiv
e O
utco
mes
HH invest own resources
Low performers have done this
Toilet Construction
Strategy => Meet Construction Targets
Weak political / administrative buy-in
Weak Institutional Arrangement
Weak CapacityAssume construction will lead to demand
Contractors engaged to accelerate
Upf
ront
h/w
su
bsid
y
Coun
ting
toile
ts
Technology fit to unit cost
Suggestions: Way Forward
+ve = Supply and Availability of Funding. However, need to focus on:
❧ Monitoring outcomes and reporting quality data
❧ Creating demand for sanitation through behavior change
❧ Delivery of subsidy as per NBA Guidelines, pay direct into beneficiary bank a/c after ODF habitation
❧ Competition to sustain NGP can help to ensure that NGP winners are not ‘forgotten’
Suggestions: Monitoring
❧ “what we monitor is what we get”
❧ Supplement existing data with six-monthly usage tracking through cross district verification
❧ Benchmarking of states/districts focusing on outcomes
❧ Potential to use ICT approaches
❧ Stronger alignment with periodic surveys
Suggestions: Demand Creation
Suggestions: Demand Creation
❧ Who will reach the communities / households….requires motivators
❧ Will they have capacity to do community led approaches
….need training
❧ Why should they do it….need outcome based incentives
Suggestions – Incentives
❧ Incentives to be released to bank a/c of hh after toilet construction and usage post ODF habitation
❧ Should not be given to third party (contractor, NGO) to construct toilets
❧ HH should be free to construct a toilet of their choice based on their affordability
❧ To release incentives, designated person can certify that toilet cost is more than incentive amount as the case may be and this is being used
Suggestions: NGP
❧ Sample surveys show slippage in NGP is a key concern
❧ MDWS Assessment (2010) found:– ~81% of HH have access to a toilet –
varies from 48% to 100% – 71% of persons report regular usage
– varies from 33% to 100%
❧ Currently NGP is a one-time award, winning PRI only ever verified once
❧ NGP may becomes an annual competition, PRI must sustain status to be eligible, “prestige” issue. Ex: Maharashtra, HP, Haryana, Karnataka
Nirmal Bharat?
201520222030
20502100
Thank you!Upneet SinghWater and Sanitation SpecialistWSP <[email protected]>
Mathews Mullackal State Coordinator, Rajasthan
WSP <[email protected]>
Results: Average Score (All India) on Quality of Processes = 56 on 100
Service Delivery Pathways: 2 States were Compared
High performerUsage ~90%
Poor Performer Usage <35%
Strategy Focus on collective behavior change
Focus on toilet construction
Institutions Dedicated staff and capacity at district and sub-district levels
Institutions are weak, with empty posts
Financing of toilets
Households motivated to invest own funds for construction
Construction depends on external subsidies
Service Delivery Pathways: 2 States were Compared
High performerUsage ~90%
Poor Performer Usage <35%
Demand creation
All BCC channels are used effectively, focus on behavior change
Toilets constructed without demand created
Supply Menu of technology options promoted household select based on options and need
Subsidy determine type of technology; Standard technology models promoted; household has no say
Scaling up Institutional structure, phasing adopted to scale up
Ad hoc implementation prevents scaling up
Service Delivery Pathways: 2 States were Compared contd
High performerUsage ~90%
Poor Performer Usage <35%
Subsidy Delivery
Given to community and household once 100% ODF is verified
Subsidy is used to pay upfront for construction of toilets without demand creation
Monitoring Focuses on outcomes and quality of data reported, NGP winners are periodically verified
Toilet numbers, no third party verification; NGP winners ‘forgotten’
Rewards Institute competition based awards to prioritize sanitation
No incentive other than meeting targets