About these Guidelines - WSSCC · Web viewThe actual scoring of this composite indicator is carried out during a meeting as explained in Section 3.2. The information required for

Global Sanitation Fund Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Part A: Overview and guidelines for using the GSF results monitoring framework

Version 2.1August 2018

2

GSF Results monitoring guidelines | Part A

Table of contents

Table of contents...........................................................................................i

Glossary and definitions...............................................................................iii

Introduction..................................................................................................1

About these Guidelines..................................................................................1

1.1 Monitoring and Evaluation in the GSF.......................................................1

1.2 Key Components of the GSF Monitoring and Evaluation System.................3Activity and financial monitoring......................................................................................................3

Results monitoring.................................................................................................................................4

Programme evaluation.........................................................................................................................6

Learning.....................................................................................................................................................7

1.3 Additional features of the GSF monitoring system.....................................8Attribution and contribution...............................................................................................................8

Integration with National M&E systems.........................................................................................8

Equity and Non Discrimination..........................................................................................................9

Sustainability...........................................................................................................................................9

Country Programme Monitors..........................................................................................................10

1.4 The M&E plan........................................................................................10

1.5 Planning and reporting cycle..................................................................11Work plans, budgets and review.....................................................................................................11

Activity and results reporting...........................................................................................................12

Roles and responsibilities in M&E...................................................................................................12

1.6 M&E Costs in GSF...................................................................................12

The GSF results framework..........................................................................14

2.1 Introduction to the GSF results framework..............................................14

2.2 Definition of results chain elements........................................................15

2.3 FIETS sustainability elements.................................................................18

Section I | National Level Results Monitoring................................................19

National level indicators..............................................................................20

3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................20

3.2 Means of verification..............................................................................21

i


3.3 National level outcome N.1: National enabling environment for achieving SDG 6.2.................................................................................................24Explanations on the sub-indicators or statements...................................................................25

Actual scoring of the sub-indicators..............................................................................................27

3.4 National level outcome N.2: Effective delivery mechanisms for achieving SDG 6.2.................................................................................................35Explanations on the sub-indicators or statements...................................................................36

Actual scoring of the sub-indicators..............................................................................................38

Section II | Subnational Level Results Monitoring..........................................46

Subnational level indicators.........................................................................47

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................47

1.2 Data collection methods.........................................................................48

1.3 Subnational level outcome S.1: SDG 6.2 in Targeted Administrative Areas50Additional information on the outcome indicators...................................................................51

1.4 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.1: Sustained ODF communities54Additional information on the outcome and output indicators.............................................57

1.5 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG target 6.2..................................................64Additional information on the outcome and output indicators.............................................66

1.6 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.3: Subnational political and financial commitment.............................................................................71Additional information on the outcome and output indicators.............................................72

1.7 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.4: Subnational coordination, learning, capacity and systems...............................................................75Additional information on the outcome and output indicators.............................................77

Annexes......................................................................................................86

Annex 1: GSF result framework....................................................................87

Annex 2: SDG target 6.2...............................................................................91

Annex 3: The JMP Sanitation and Hygiene Ladders........................................94

Annex 4: Mapping the new GSF Results Framework to the Results Framework of the WSSCC 2017-2020 Strategic Plan..................................................95

ii


Glossary and definitions

Term Definition / explanation

CapacityCapacity is the actual or potential ability to perform. It is often used to mean the overall ability of an organisation or system to create value for others.

Composite indicator A composite indicator is formed when individual indicators are compiled into a single score or index. Composite indicators are used to measure and summarise complex or multi-dimensional issues, which cannot be captured by a single indicator. Since composite indicators provide the big picture, they can be easier to interpret than trying to find a trend in many separate indicators.

CPM In countries where GSF operates, Country Programme Monitors (CPMs) may be hired by the GSF Secretariat to support in the assessment of programme progress towards achieving the established outputs and ensuring that programme funds are used in accordance with the grant agreement and approved work plan and budget.

CPP Country Programme Proposal

CEP Country Engagement Plan

Delivery mechanism Delivery mechanism may be considered as the set of principles, standards, processes and procedures, which ensure that policy objectives become concrete actions on the ground. As such, it forms the “vehicle” specifically designed to deliver a consistent service to a specific user community in a planned and organised way. Developing, testing and demonstrating delivery mechanisms at scale and within a context that other recognise as realistic (e.g. not flooding a district with external money and capacity) is essential.

DGIS The Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Netherlands. DGIS – responsible for development cooperation policy and for its coordination, implementation and funding – is one of WSSCC’s regular funders.

EA Executing Agencies are jointly appointed by GSF and the PCM, and are contracted by UNOPS. EAs receive grant funds and manage the GSF-supported country programme. A diverse range of EAs has been appointed, representing government entities, international NGOs, United Nations agencies and the private sector. The EA selects, supervises, and supports Implementing Partners.

Enabling environment The enabling environment of the WASH sector is a set of interrelated sector functions that enable governments and public and private partners to engage in a sustained and effective WASH service delivery development process. An enabling environment for WASH is one that creates the conditions for a country to have sustainable, at-scale WASH services that facilitate achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

EQND Equality and Non-Discrimination. GSF programmes are expected to focus on disadvantaged groups to ensure that these groups benefit positively from GSF-supported programmes.

IP In each country where GSF operates, Implementing Partners (IPs) are sub-contracted by the Executing Agency to implement the programme in the targeted administrative areas. Implementing Partners report directly to the Executing Agency.

JMP WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for water supply and sanitation. The definitions for different types of sanitation facilities can be found on https://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/watsan-ladder/

iii

https://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/watsan-ladder/


Term Definition / explanation

GDP Gross domestic product (GDP) is the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period. GDP includes all private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports minus imports that occur within a defined territory. Put simply, GDP is a broad measurement of a nation’s overall economic activity. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

GESI Gender Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI)

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is an ongoing process by which stakeholders check the progress and or quality of something over a period of time against plans and targets set during the planning phase. It is the systematic and routine collection and analysis of information aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of an activity, project, programme or organisation.

Evaluation is an assessment, conducted as systematically and impartially as possible, of an activity, project, programme, strategy, policy, topic, theme, sector, operational area or institutional performance. It analyses the level of achievement of both expected and unexpected results by examining the results chain, processes, contextual factors and causality using appropriate criteria such as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. An evaluation should provide credible, useful evidence-based information that enables the timely incorporation of its findings, recommendations and lessons into the decision-making processes of organizations and stakeholders.

NC National Coordinator of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC)

Outputs Outputs are specific products and services delivered by the programme that emerge from processing inputs through activities (for example number of training organised or number of staff trained). Outputs are easy to measure as they can be counted.

Outcomes Outcomes represent changes in development conditions that occurred because of the programme. They generally represent changes in behaviour and practices (for example maintenance and use of facilities, adoption of hygienic practices, and achievement of ODF status). They are not seen immediately after the end of an activity but after some time. Outcomes are more difficult to measure and often require tracking over time.

PCM Project Coordinating Mechanism of the Global Sanitation Fund (GSF)

Performance monitoring Performance monitoring is a means to support the supervision of programme activities in progress to ensure that they are on-course and on-schedule in meeting the programme objectives and performance targets.

Scorecard A performance scorecard measures the progress over time of an entity toward some specified goal or goals. They can also be used to measure progress towards specific sector goals. Performance scorecards are widely used in both the public and private sectors. The integral concepts of scorecards are performance indicators (KPIs) and targets. KPIs are metrics used to evaluate factors or conditions that are crucial to the success of an organisation (or sector); targets are specific goals for those indicators.

SDG 6.2 Sustainable Development Goal 6 target 2 (SDG 6.2): by 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

Theory of Change (ToC) Theory of Change (ToC) is essentially a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context. It is focused in particular on mapping out or “filling in” what has been described as the “missing middle” between what a programme or change initiative does (its activities or interventions) and how these lead to desired goals being achieved.

iv

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp


Introduction

About these GuidelinesThese guidelines are designed as a practical guide to understanding and implementing the GSF monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework with particular focus on programme results monitoring. Developed with support from the IRC Water and Sanitation Centre, the guidelines are intended mainly for use by Global Sanitation Fund (GSF) Executing Agencies and Implementing Partners but also serve to inform any interested parties on the GSF M&E framework and associated systems and practices. It should be noted that the guidelines are specific to how M&E is performed in GSF and are not a general guide to M&E.

These guidelines are an updated version of the GSF guidelines developed in 2012. The guidelines were updated as a response to the evolution of GSF programmes and the considerable learning gained on how to strengthen the systems in place for improved planning and monitoring of interventions. In addition, guided by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2016 GSF went through a process to articulate a Theory of Change (ToC) to describe how GSF programmes will contribute to achieving SDG target 6.2. Aligned with the GSF ToC, a new GSF results framework (RF) and financial reporting tool were developed to support GSF programmes to better track, measure and report on their performance and contribution towards achieving SDG 6.2. The GSF M&E Guidelines have subsequently been updated to reflect these developments within GSF.

1.1 Monitoring and Evaluation in the GSF As part of WSSCC, GSF contributes to achieving the goals set out in the 2017-2020 WSSCC Strategic Plan 1. GSF programmes are geared towards achieving results in the most efficient, effective and sustainable way possible. For that purpose a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework has been developed that can generate sufficient data and information by which effectiveness (programme results) and efficiency can be measured. Such a framework also supports GSF to undertake value for money (VfM) analysis, VfM is generally defined as obtaining the best possible outcome within a given budget and seeks to provide a transparent framework on which to base programmatic decisions. A key objective of supporting VFM analysis is to help improve programme performance.

The GSF M&E framework is centred on the GSF Results Framework (RF), which enables GSF to monitor and evaluate its progress towards achieving the vision set out in its Theory of Change (ToC) 2 at both the national and subnational level. The alignment of the GSF Results framework to the overarching results framework of WSCCC is shown in annex 3.

In the pursuit of achieving SDG target 6.2, the M&E framework forms the basis of a clearly articulated series of steps to be used by all GSF stakeholders to plan activities, monitor progress, track the effectiveness of approaches and learn what works and what does not work.

At the national programme level, the purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to track implementation and outputs systematically, and measure the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of programmes. It helps determine exactly when a programme is on track and when changes may be needed. Monitoring and evaluation forms the basis for modifications of interventions and assessing the quality of activities being

1 http://wsscc.org/resources-feed/wsscc-strategic-plan-2017-2020/2 The GSF Theory of Change is explained in a separate document: Global Sanitation Fund: Theory of Change & in-country

Programme Evolution; Investing in Collective Behaviour Change and the Enabling Environment to Achieve Sustainable Sanitation for All

1


conducted. Monitoring can be used to demonstrate that programme efforts have had a measurable impact on expected outputs and outcomes and that the programme has been implemented effectively. It is essential in helping managers, planners, implementers, policy makers and donors acquire the information and understanding they need to make informed decisions about programme operations.

At the global GSF secretariat level, the purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to identify and document successful programmes and approaches and tracking progress towards common indicators across the country programmes. Monitoring and evaluation forms the basis for strengthening our understanding around the many multi-layered factors underlying the barriers and motivators to behaviour change with regards to improved sanitation and hygiene practices, and the effectiveness of the GSF’s response at community, sub-national, national and international level. This is critically important to contribute to the global evidence on what kinds of strategies and approaches are effective in sustainably changing sanitation and hygiene behaviours.

Results-based management The GSF aligns its systems and tools with the principles and procedures of results-based management, aligning with national monitoring systems and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The GSF’s results framework therefore consists of results-driven planning, funding and reporting, which enables the GSF to focus on and achieve its mission to deliver quality and sustainable results.

The position of monitoring, evaluation and learning in the GSF programme cycle is shown in Figure 1.1. The same figure also shows the importance of monitoring, evaluation and learning to make adjustments, if so needed, to programme strategies and or programme actions.

Figure 1.1: Monitoring and learning embedded in the project cycle3

3 Modification of the Adaptive Management Cycle which was originally developed for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Jones, 2009, p.237)

2


1.2 Key Components of the GSF Monitoring and Evaluation System

The basis for the GSF monitoring system is the GSF Theory of Change (ToC) which was rearticulated and documented in 2017. The ToC takes the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 6.2 as its departure working to influence change at three principle levels: the subnational, national and global levels. The GSF M&E system is designed to monitor and evaluate progress achieved at each of these three levels and is guided by the GSF Results Framework.

The GSF monitoring and evaluation system, as shown in Figure 1.2, consists of four interlinked components:

1) Activity and financial monitoring;

2) Results monitoring;

3) Programme evaluation; and

4) Learning

Figure 1.2: The GSF M&E Framework

Although the focus of these M&E guidelines are on results monitoring, the other components will also be briefly discussed below in order to demonstrate their interlinkages.

Activity and financial monitoring Activity monitoring involves linking financial inputs with programme activities carried out to achieve specific programme outputs as per the GSF Results Framework. Activity monitoring aims to ensure smooth, well-run operations and continuously ensure that adequate resources are in place and used efficiently to achieve

3


anticipated results. Ongoing activity monitoring tracks the delivery and performance of country work plans and budgets.

Activity monitoring data are generated by implementing partners with the executing agency providing oversight. The core monitoring tools for activity monitoring are the annual work plans and budgets linking financial resources to activities to be implemented in the course of the year and the financial monitoring tool. Progress against the work plans and budgets is reported through semi-annual and annual reports. The information in these reports is used to assess timely implementation of activities against work plans and level of expenditure against agreed budgets.

Tracking financial resources used to achieve specific programme results is also an important area of focus for the GSF in order to support the analysis of Value for Money (VFM) within programmes. In 2016-2017 GSF developed a financial monitoring tool, which supports EAs and IPs to track expenditure on activities in a number of pre-determined expenditure categories, which provides a basis for further financial analysis of what resources are required to achieve programme results. Information including manuals on using the GSF Financial Tool can be found in separate documents.

Results monitoring Results monitoring is concerned with measuring the outputs, intermediate outcomes and outcomes of programme activities so that programmes are able to (1) regularly review programme progress based on reliable data and sound evidence, and (2) take necessary course correction when required, based on this evidence. Results monitoring is linked back to inputs and expenditures by making use of information generated by activity and financial monitoring4.

At the outset GSF country programme proposals (CPPs) (including multi-year work plans & budgets) are required to demonstrate how they will achieve the GSF outcomes at national and subnational levels as set out in the GSF results framework. Every GSF-funded activity must be mapped directly to a specific output and indirectly to an (intermediate) outcome in the results framework. The GSF results framework is broad to allow for a wide range of outputs related to sanitation and hygiene to be monitored and for new outputs to be monitored as the programme evolves. The Results Framework, with its set definitions and standardised indicators, then allows for the outputs and outcomes of individual activities funded by the GSF in different countries to be summed together.

Results monitoring relies on reporting by implementing partners with the executing agency providing oversight. As per the new GSF Results Framework, some indicators are also monitored via periodic outcome surveys. The data collection and tools used for results monitoring in each GSF country programme will vary depending on the context of the national programme and factors such as the quality of existing sectoral monitoring systems. The overall programme approach for results monitoring is developed during programme inception and laid out in the country M&E plan (see section 1.4) which describes in detail the country-specific routine monitoring system.

As described in figure 1.3 country-specific routine monitoring systems manage the flow of programme results data from the community level up to the GSF Secretariat on a regular basis. Programme results are subjected to various internal and external verification exercises to validate their accuracy and reliability. As also shown in figure 1.3 the formal mechanisms include:

Contracting of independent country programme monitors;

Periodic programme reviews;

Outcome surveys and;

4 From 2018 onwards activity, financial and results monitoring will be more intrinsically linked through the roll out of the GSF Results Monitoring and Financial online tracking tool. These M&E guidelines will be updated further once the online tool is operational.

4


Programme evaluation.

Figure 1.3: The GSF monitoring and results reporting system

External programme outcome surveys Outcomes surveys are a critical results monitoring tool that all GSF programmes are mandated to undertake as part of the GSF M&E system. At the start of a new country programme the EA is expected to commission a baseline survey to understand the sanitation and hygiene situation within the targeted programme area and to know where the programme is starting from. If a programme expands to new geographic areas then a baseline survey for those new areas is also required. The EA will then subsequently commission independent outcome surveys to collect quantitative data at the household and community level in order:

To provide statistically reliable data on key sanitation and hygiene indicators to measure household, facility and community outcomes of GSF supported programmes in the GSF targeted areas. This also allows for the independent verification of reported program results;

To serve as a sustainability check through identifying whether households in ODF declared communities have continued to use and properly maintain improved toilets and hand washing facilities and continue to comply to national ODF criteria;

To understand if the results achieved have addressed equity and non-discrimination and met the needs of marginal and vulnerable populations.

To collect data on emerging areas or indicators that are too sensitive or challenging to collect through routine programme monitoring systems. For example indicators relating to satisfaction with sanitation and hygiene facilities and participation in CLTS interventions.

In 2016, WSSCC established a partnership with the University at Buffalo (UB) for the purpose of strengthening and standardising the outcome survey methodology. Part of this methodology includes measuring whether social norms related to sanitation and hygiene behaviour have positively changed in the programme area.

From 2018, it is expected that all GSF supported programmes will apply this methodology and adopt these tools when conducting outcome surveys on a two yearly basis. The EA is responsible for recruiting an independent qualified research agency to conduct the outcome survey. The WSSCC Secretariat will provide standard survey terms of references, survey tools, field manuals and reporting formats to be customised at the country level and will also support the EA in providing technical assistance to the research agency implementing the survey.

5


Periodic Programme ReviewsPeriodic programme reviews are an integral part of the GSF programme cycle and serve as a form of programme monitoring that aims to provide feedback on performance to inform planning and improve implementation. Programme reviews use information generated through the monitoring and evaluation system as well as from various other sources to establish whether the programme, as a whole, is proceeding in the right direction and achieving the desired results.

Programme reviews are carried out at defined points in the programme cycle. Typically, the EA will carry out regular reviews throughout the year directly with IPs with the aim to assess progress in implementation and address the challenges that arise. Annual reviews are used to improve on-going implementation, including modifying existing work plans. GSF and other stakeholders such as the PCM and CPM may also participate in the annual programme review exercises with IPs.

Periodic programme reviews that involve both internal and external reviewers are also recommended at the mid-term and end-term programme periods. The purpose of the mid-term review is to determine whether the implementation of the programme is going in the right direction, is on course to meet the targets defined in the country programme plan (CPP) and whether interventions and targets are still aligned with the national sector strategy. Mid -term reviews are used to adjust the CPP and multi-year work plan, adjustments may include modifying target programme areas, programme targets and types of interventions.

The aim of an end-term review is to examine all elements of the programme with particular focus on reviewing evidence generated (via outcome surveys, evaluations, focused studies etc.) on the outcomes and impact of the programme. An end-term review will usually constitute the situation analysis of any new country programme plan or engagement. The end-term review should ideally have a strong external or independent element in its execution to assure objectivity of the conclusions. Further guidance on conducting mid and end term programme reviews will be forthcoming by GSF.

Programme evaluationExternal programme evaluations Programme evaluation assesses the overall achievement of the goals and outcomes of the programme. Programme evaluations are both summative, by independently assessing and verifying results achieved so far; and formative in that it aims to provide analysis, feedback and recommendations to help WSSCC/GSF programmes improve their effectiveness and overall impact. Programme evaluations are expected to provide clear, concrete and feasible recommendations for future design and engagement of the WSSCC/GSF programme in a particular country. WSSCC evaluations are structured around the evaluation criteria of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/DAC) on Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability.

Evaluations address, but are not limited to, the following broad areas:

a) Relevance: Determine whether the current programme approach has appropriate strategies in place to reach the goals of the Country Programme Proposal (CPP) and contribute to the National Sanitation and Hygiene goals;

b) Effectiveness: Assess the extent to which the programme has achieved (or not) its objectives, outcomes and outputs. This includes an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and challenges and any external factors that have affected the achievement of the objectives and the delivery of outputs and outcomes;

c) Sustainability: Assess the sustainability of the programme strategy and results through an examination of the levels of ownership, quality of the interventions and strategies to address gaps and evolving needs of the stakeholder’s over time at the community level, the institutional level, including within national and local government entities, and civil society.

6


d) Efficiency: Assess the extent to which the outputs and outcomes have been time and resource efficient (HR and financial), paying special attention to the financial expenditures status against the CPP.

e) Impact: Assess the contribution to impact, and the pathways that lead to its impact.

The data and information drawn on as part the GSF programme evaluation typically includes the following sources:

Findings from the programme baseline and subsequent programme outcome surveys which indicate the current sanitation and hygiene status in the target programme area so as to enable the total progress in terms of attributable and related outputs and outcomes to be assessed;

Information generated by activity and financial monitoring and results monitoring;

Qualitative data deriving from focus group discussions and key informant interviewers with community level, national and global stakeholders.

Programme evaluations are carried out by independent agencies/consultants hired by WSSCC. All GSF programmes are mandated to undergo an evaluation at least once during a 5 year period, to date evaluations have commonly taken place 3-4 years into the first programme cycle and have been referred to as mid-term evaluations (MTEs). Dependent on funding, some programme will be selected by WSSCC to undergo an end line evaluation.

Following the finalisation of the evaluation report, WSSCC and the EA will develop a management response to the evaluation recommendations, which includes an action plan for how the recommendations will be taken forward at each level. The management response is monitored during periodic programme reviews, and progress against specific actions is to be documented in annual reporting.

Learning The GSF focuses on continuous learning at the subnational, national and global levels, to boost implementation and innovation. GSF has identified four distinct learning objectives and processes, which are all connected with the M&E system is the following ways:

1) Continued programmatic learning aimed at immediately improving programme outcomes and effectiveness. Data stemming from routine monitoring systems and outcome surveys on the programme results achieved analysed against work plans and expenditures provides a core contribution to this type of continuous learning.

2) Applied research to deepen understanding of processes and programmes and contribute to a high-quality evidence-base on (factors influencing) effectiveness and efficiency of GSF-supported programmes and approaches. The identification of research priorities will often be based on an analysis of the data generated through the M&E system, particularly evaluations, whereby GSF management identifies key questions for further analysis. Further qualitative research may also be used to support any gaps in information that current M&E systems may be unable to capture.

3) Analysis and documentation of reflections, good practices, innovations and processes. Such documentation is designed to be shared broadly, with external partners and across country programmes and often complements the quantitative data reported through the monitoring systems.

4) Engagement in continued programmatic learning across the sector to strategically partner with other organisations working in the same space to benefit, learn from and contribute to strengthened monitoring tools and national systems for measuring progress towards achieving SDG 6.2. To build or contribute to a growing (local, national and international) sanitation movement, and to use evidence from the M&E systems to demonstrate scale and impact to influence national models, roadmaps and programming approaches.

7


In order to optimise learning opportunities from ongoing monitoring, it is important that opportunities for reflection and programme adaptation are systematically built into annual programme and monitoring cycles, and reflected in the reporting. This also helps the Secretariat to identify opportunities or areas for multi-country learning or assessments and learning exchange between multiple programmes. More guidance and tips on MEL will be provided in a set of revised Learning Guidelines, foreseen for 2018.

1.3 Additional features of the GSF monitoring systemAttribution and contributionGSF-supported activities are always implemented within a wider sector environment. The GSF acknowledges the work that has taken place by other actors. In addition, in most countries the GSF support is one of a number of current interventions all of which may contribute to the anticipated improvement of the sanitation and hygiene situation and the overall enabling environment.

The monitoring system can generate accurate data on outputs and outcomes. The outputs, results that are achieved immediately after implementing an activity, are in almost all cases realised purely by the programme and can therefore be attributed to GSF-funded activities. The outcomes, changes in development conditions that occurred during the course of the programme, cannot always be attributed solely to the programme. Linking those changes to a specific intervention or to a specific actor might be misleading. Although the GSF interventions are designed to effect social change, it is unlikely that on their own they will be sufficient. At the minimum, the GSF interventions should contribute towards the end results, but there will be other things beyond our control that could be fundamental in realising the desired social and behavioural change. Therefore, it would be safe to report outcomes as results to which GSF has contributed. A summary of GSF’s view on attribution and contribution to the different result areas is provided in figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Attribution and contribution to GSF result areas

Integration with National M&E systemsGSF programmes are expected to actively support wider in-country WASH sector monitoring mechanisms and ODF verification protocols and systems. In practice, this means that many programme results are also being verified through broader WASH sector ODF verification processes, often through third-party verification mechanisms.

As far as possible, the data for GSF supported programme results are expected to draw from as well as feed into existing national M&E data systems. In countries where the EA is the national government it is expected that programme results achieved within the GSF targeted geographic areas are reported through the national monitoring systems in place. In countries where the GSF EA relies on its own organisational system for reporting programme results, available data in concerned line Ministries and national statistics agencies should

8


be assessed for its consistency with reported programme data. Moreover arrangements for data and information to flow between the GSF supported programme at national level and official sector national systems should be clearly set out and reflected in the country M&E Plan developed by the executing agency with input from the programme coordinating mechanism and the country programme monitor during programme inception.

Monitoring behaviour change (use of facilities, hygiene behaviours), inclusion and sustainability is a key challenge across national government and GSF systems. Influencing and strengthening government monitoring systems is a key objective and part of GSF’s overall value addition to the sector and the success of how GSF does this is measured in the GSF Results Framework.

Equity and Non Discrimination The M&E system is a critical platform for monitoring how well dimensions of equity and non-discrimination (EQND) have been integrated within the GSF supported programmes. The revised GSF Results Framework and its emphasis on reaching SDG target 6.2 require a much more deliberate focus on EQND. For example, the results framework incorporates outcome indicators that require implementing partners (IP) to report on the extent to which potentially disadvantaged individuals and households have been reached through the programme. All GSF programmes are required, at a minimum, to provide disaggregated data by sex, disability and age on key population based outcome indicators. Further definitions for ‘disadvantaged’ groups is developed at local level under the leadership of the EA and included as part of the GSF country programme specific results framework.

It is recognised that many routine national monitoring systems are still not set up to collect EQND related data and strengthening these systems takes time. EAs have a strong role to play in influencing and strengthening routine national systems so that they are eventually better able to track EQND related elements. EA progress towards this is captured through the national level score cards (described in sections 3.3 and 3.4) introduced as part of this guideline. The Results Framework also monitors the extent to which programmes are supporting subnational administrations on integrating EQND into programming and how this is being reflected in subnational monitoring systems.

Whilst data gaps and weaknesses prevail in routine monitoring systems GSF outcome surveys are a critical tool for providing disaggregated data where routine systems are currently unable. The outcome survey tools also go further in their focus on EQND with the inclusion of indicators and questions to better understand aspects such as satisfaction and participation of disadvantaged groups within programme interventions (the outcome surveys methodology and tools are described in section 1.2). To this end, the GSF Results Framework incorporates a number of indicators that are not to be tracked or reported against as part of routine national monitoring but are necessary for GSF to monitor in order to understand how well EQND is being integrated into programming.

In 2016, the GSF Secretariat commissioned an extensive independent diagnosis on the GSF’s approach to equality and inclusion. Among many of the study recommendations were recommendations related to strengthening monitoring of EQND within programmes. Some of these recommendations have already been adopted such as the revision of the outcome survey tool. These guidelines will be updated further as measures and good practices to improve monitoring EQND are tested and identified. One such measure concerns a methodology and system to identify early on, pre-intervention /pre-triggering, the potentially disadvantaged households that may require particular attention or monitoring, in order to ensure equal attainment of key outcome indicators.

Sustainability Central to the SDGs, GSF is determined to achieve results that can be sustained after its support has ended. Increasingly donors require partners to guarantee sustainability of WASH services by using ‘sustainability

9


checks’ to monitor whether results are being maintained and project outputs are sustainable beyond the end of the current programme5. By building in sustainability checks to the components within the M&E framework programmes are able to systematically monitor key sustainability criteria and use the results to make course corrections.

Mainstreaming the focus on sustainability within the GSF programme and embedding sustainability checks within the M&E system predominately involves four processes:

1) Ensuring that sustainability is integrated within country programme plans between WSSCC/GSF and National Governments thereby identifying bottlenecks to sustainability and setting out Government commitments and WSSCC/GSF’s supporting role.

2) Inclusion of sustainability focused indicators within the GSF results framework. Further information on how this has been done can be found in section 2.3.

3) Measuring, as part of the regular programme two yearly outcome surveys, whether community and household level programme results have been sustained and based on survey findings, strengthening post ODF follow up where necessary.

4) Assessment of the sustainability of the programme strategy at the community and institutional level as part of programme evaluation. Management Response (feedback loop) that addresses corrective actions planned or taken by the National Governments and partners to address non-optimal functionality identified by the evaluation.

Country Programme MonitorsCountry programme monitors (CPMs) are hired by the GSF Secretariat, based on needs, to support in the assessment of programme progress towards achieving the established outputs and ensuring that programme funds are used in accordance with the grant agreement and approved work plan and budget.

Among the many duties of a CPM related to financial monitoring and verification, verifying programme results is one of the core activities. The CPM performs verification through several mechanisms. Foremost CPMs are responsible for verifying that EA systems are in place to monitor progress and finance. CPMS will then cross check progress against agreed EA work plans, IP work plans and EA performance assessment of IPs to ensure that the monitoring system is being implemented and adhered to as per the M&E plan. CPMs are also expected to triangulate data with other available data sources from subnational and national sectoral monitoring systems. Finally in a few cases CPMs conduct random spot checks (perform onsite verification) and/or commission specific sample surveys to draw conclusions on the reliability and accuracy of the reported programme results.

The CPMs submit detailed semi-annual and annual reports including financial reports) based on reviews of the EA's semi-annual and annual progress reports and analysis of implementation and results observed.

1.4 The M&E planAll GSF country programme proposals (CPPs) include an outline of the country specific monitoring and evaluation plan. During the inception phase of the programme the executing agency, with support from the programme coordinating mechanism develops a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan that will guide all monitoring and evaluation activities during programme implementation. From 2017, all CPPs and subsequent M&E plans are expected to align with the new GSF Results Framework.

5 Agreements between DGIS and receivers of Dutch funds require them to design and implement a sustainability framework aiming to secure adequate functioning of the sanitation and hygiene facilities and implementation of behavioural change (use of latrines and handwashing facilities) for a period of up to 10 years from the start date of the programme.

10


Start-up activities to be carried out by the executing agency in the early stages of programme implementation will include:

1) Identification of responsibilities for collecting data, including development of a monitoring protocol for each implementing partner and the executing agency. This process will be led by the executing agency and will require consultation with other actors including staff of relevant government bodies. It should also include an analysis of existing government monitoring systems and mapping of links between these and the GSF monitoring (and evaluation) system. For example, this will include information on where data points can be generated using existing government data.

2) Design and implementation of the baseline survey which is managed by the EA through the hiring of an external research agency providers. For GSF supported programmes entering a subsequent country programme period the end line outcome survey of the previous programme will be used.

3) Elaboration of the process for regular review, learning and verification by the executing agency of activity monitoring and results monitoring data generated by implementing partners.

4) Detailed work plans including any procurement arrangements for the implementation of activity monitoring, results monitoring, outcome surveys and any contribution to joint evaluations.

It is critical that the M&E plan is periodically reviewed by the EA in consultation with IPs throughout the programme period to ensure that sufficient data and information is being generated in a timely, reliable and efficient manner. External validation mechanisms such as programme evaluations, outcome surveys and assessments by CPMs will also contribute to the review of the of the M&E plan. M&E plans and tools should be strengthened and updated based on these reviews.

1.5 Planning and reporting cycleWork plans, budgets and review The GSF model at country level involves a long-term commitment to each country where it is operational; however, the programme design typically covers a 5-year period. Hence, the planning cycle for the GSF programmes at national level follows a 5-year cycle. The CPP – including the country-specific Theory of Change and results framework as well as the 5-year work plan and budget – set the strategic direction for the programme, defines the overall objectives and sets targets and milestones related to the expected programme results. The planning process thereafter follows an annual cycle. Draft annual work plans and budgets are developed in the November of the preceding year for approval by the PCM and WSSCC, the final work plan and budget is then submitted to WSSCC Secretariat with the previous year’s annual report submission at the end of January.

Annual work plans and budgets set specific annual targets and identify the resources required to deliver these. From 2018 the annual EA workplan templates are designed around the GSF results framework so that all activities and sub activities are aligned to outputs and outcomes in the results framework. Starting from the end of 2018 EAs are requested to enter their workplans into an online Financial and Result’s Reporting Tool. Guidance on how to use this tool is provided in a separate manual6

Activity and results reportingGSF supported programmes are required to submit a semi-annual and annual narrative and financial report, which describe the progress and achievements against activities and results in the annual work plans and budgets. Starting from 2017, the two reporting periods for all supported programmes are as follows:

A semi-annual report (covering the period of January-June) is sent to the GSF Secretariat by July 31st

6 All WSSCC GSF tools are resources can be found here: https://www.wsscc.org/12005-2/

11


An annual report (covering the period of January-December) is sent to the GSF Secretariat by January 31st of the following year.

At the mid-year point, programmes will only be requested to report on a subset of all result indicators, during the annual reporting period programmes will be required to enter results on all indicators included in the GSF results framework relevant to the programme.

Starting from the end of 2018 EAs will enter mid-year and end-year programme results into an online Financial and Result’s Reporting Tool. Guidance on how to use this tool is provided in a separate manual7

The GSF secretariat compiles and integrates country specific reports into consolidated reports at the global level. The WSSCC annual progress reports are published on the WSSCC website.

Roles and responsibilities in M&EThe WSSCC secretariat in Geneva is responsible for developing systems, providing instructions, guidelines and tools for guiding and strengthening M&E systems of country programmes. The WSSCC secretariat is further in charge of providing technical support and monitoring that guidelines and systems are adhered to throughout the programme duration. WSSCC is responsible for consolidating all country supported results to feed into WSSCC global and donor reporting. WSSCC is also responsible for the management of independent GSF programme evaluations.

The in-country GSF team, including the Programme Coordinating Mechanism (PCM) and the EA are responsible for adapting and applying the M&E system at the national level, for identifying clear roles and responsibilities of all GSF stakeholders, including implementing partners. The M&E plan, developed by the EA with inputs from the PCM and approved by the GSF secretariat should guide all M&E activities at the national and subnational levels.

The EA is responsible for the overall implementation of the programme M&E plan. It is recommended by GSF that all EAs appoint a dedicated officer responsible for M&E. Reporting to the Programme Manager, the M&E Officer will oversee the operationalisation of the M&E plan providing technical support and capacity development to IPs. The M&E Officer compiles the data submitted by IPs and is responsible for analysing this data and undertaking data quality checks and verification activities to ensure reliability of results reporting.

IPs are responsible for following the M&E programme guidelines and using the tools and systems established by the EA. IPs are required to ensure that subnational and community level reported data within the areas they operate is accurate and reliable. It is crucial that in the early stages of programme implementation the IPs develop capacity of any district or community members involved in the programme data collection and monitoring.

All stakeholders (the PCM, EA, CPM and WSSCC) are responsible for ensuring that the M&E plan and budget is being adhered to and that the plan is modified when necessary as the programme is implemented.

1.6 M&E Costs for GSF supported programmes Effective monitoring and evaluation is expensive. It is important to balance the cost of monitoring with the usefulness and reliability of data generated. Spending more money can result in better information but only if monitoring tools are well designed and effectively implemented. WSSCC has a strong commitment to effective monitoring and learning and encourages EAs to develop appropriate and well-costed M&E plans during programme inception. As a rule of thumb, an expenditure of between 5% and 10% of the total programme budget on M&E is considered reasonable which includes all the EA and IP operational M&E related costs. This

7 All WSSCC GSF tools are resources can be found here: https://www.wsscc.org/12005-2/

12

https://www.wsscc.org/global-sanitation-fund/


benchmark will be continuously monitored and assessed by WSSCC management and may be subject to revision as time passes.

The majority of the M&E budget of any GSF supported programme should be spent on the establishment of effective monitoring and reporting systems and regular outcome surveys. All GSF programmes should include a learning and knowledge management strategy for which a budget should be allocated. This will be used in part to fund periodic reviews, regular learning activities as well as any additional learning even though the details of all additional learning activities cannot be identified at the outset. Programme evaluation will typically be commissioned and funded directly by the WSSCC Secretariat.

13


The GSF results framework

2.1 Introduction to the GSF results frameworkThe GSF results framework was developed to:

1) ensure consistency across GSF country programmes by providing a common framework to plan and monitor national programmes; and

2) enable the measurement of results of country programmes in a consistent manner to allow for comparison and summing across all country programmes.

WSSCC, executing agencies and implementing partners therefore refer to the same results framework and the same standard definitions within the framework. Every programme component in a national country work plan is mapped to a standardised outcome in the results framework and every activity in the work plan maps to a standardised output in the results framework. The GSF result framework is thus used for planning as well as for result monitoring purposes.

The results framework is structured according to the GSF Theory of Change. The causal relation between strategy (the programme’s overall goal, specific objectives and outcomes), resources (inputs such as human capital, equipment and finance), actual concrete programme activities, and the different types of results (outputs, intermediate outcomes and outcomes) is presented in the Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Components of the GSF Results Framework

14


To measure progress in realising the different outcomes, and to achieve the programme’s national and global goals, a set of output, intermediate outcome and outcome indicators have been identified. To ensure that programme results are captured and reported systematically and uniformly, all the country programmes will apply a set of generic indicators. The results framework is purposely broad to include all possible outputs on the casual pathway to reaching SDG target 6.2. It is recognised therefore that not all programmes may report on the entirety of results framework.

The complete set of national and subnational level outcome, intermediate outcome and output indicators is provided in Annex 1.

2.2 Definition of results chain elements The GSF Results Framework uses standardised terminology and definitions to ensure that data can be summed across different implementing partners, executing agencies and countries. The following definitions are used in this document.

Goals: The desired result to which all GSF activities, outputs and outcomes contribute.

The GSF results framework recognises two goals: one at national level, and one at global level.

Goals included in the GSF results framework: Goal 1: National achievements of SDG 6.2 Goal 2: Global achievement of SDG 6.2

Outcomes: Medium-term and long-term effects or changes in development conditions that occurred because of the programme.

Outcomes are expected to be achieved as the cumulative result of a range of lower level outputs and or intermediate outcomes. They generally represent changes in behaviour and practices (for example maintenance and use of facilities, adoption of hygienic practices, and achievement of ODF status) . They are not seen immediately after the end of an activity but after some time. Outcomes are more difficult to measure and usually require tracking over time.

The GSF results framework has three outcomes: two at national level, and one at subnational level.

Examples: National level outcome N1: National Enabling Environment for

achieving SDG 6.2Substantial political commitment, increased resourcing, and strengthened coordination, capacity and systems for achieving sanitation and hygiene for all

Subnational level outcome S1: SDG 6.2 in Targeted Administrative AreasEntire population in targeted administrative areas achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

Intermediate outcomes: Critical short-term results that must occur in order to achieve an outcome.

15


Intermediate outcomes are the critical middle layer of any measurement framework. They are important as it allows managers to track progress towards outcomes, assess what difference they are making in the short and medium term, and check whether the right mix of outputs is in place.

The GSF results framework has four intermediate outcomes at subnational level.

Examples: Subnational intermediate outcome S1: Sustained ODF communities

Communities/population in targeted administrative areas have ended OD, use improved sanitation and have access to handwashing facilities

Subnational intermediate outcome S2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG 6.2Strategies and approaches are being applied in GSF targeted administrative areas to contribute to the realisation of SDG 6.2

Outputs: The amount of products, goods and services delivered relevant to the (intermediate) outcomes.

Outputs are specific products and services delivered by the programme that emerge from processing inputs through activities. In general, outputs are easy to measure as they can be counted.

The GSF results framework has 31 outputs: 8 at national level and 23 at subnational level.

Examples: Subnational level output 2.1: # of targeted communities supported

through the programme to undertake activities to address safely managed sanitation

Subnational level output 2.3: # of local sanitation and hygiene related entrepreneurs and artisans supported through the programme

Activities: Actions taken or work performed to transform inputs into outputs.

Activities are a combination of tasks implemented by a sub-grantee or executing agency as part of the agreed work plan and budget. Each activity is mapped to one of the outputs in the results framework. Activities may be divided into sub-activities to facilitate planning and management.

Inputs: Financial, human and material resources used to carry out activities

Inputs, in simple terms, are those things that we use in the project to implement it. For example, in any project, inputs would include things like human resource (personnel), finances in the form of money, machinery such as vehicles, and equipment such as computers among others. Inputs ensure that it is possible to deliver the intended results of a project.

Assumptions: for a given output or outcome to give rise to another outcome or goal, assumptions have to hold true (or be made to become true).

While developing a theory of change, assumptions are articulated that implementers will use to explain the change process represented by the result chain or changeframework. Assumptions are at the basis of all the hypothesised causal connections between outputs, intermediate outcomes, outcomes and the expected goals. Assumptions make it clear how and why proposedinterventions will lead to the expected outcomes.

16


Assumptions may be supported by research, which strengthens the plausibility of the theory and the likelihood that stated goals will be accomplished.

A summary of the definitions of the main results chain elements is provided in Figure 2.2.

17


Figure 2.2: Definitions and relation between the GSF results chain elements

The range of results chain elements (from inputs to overall programme goals) are measured or monitored by using different core monitoring and evaluation components:

Inputs and activities are monitored through activity and financial monitoring mechanisms.

Outputs, intermediate outcomes and outcomes are monitored through regular result monitoring mechanisms, and

Certain outcomes and overall programme goals are monitored, assessed and or validated through different programme evaluation systems.

The three core monitoring and evaluation components and what they monitor are summarised in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Summary of GSF M&E components and what they measure

18


2.3 FIETS sustainability elements

GSF is determined to create results that can be sustained after its support has ended. To realise this, the concept of sustainability has been embraced wholeheartedly and FIETS sustainability dimensions have been incorporated into the GSF result framework. The FIETS sustainability approach8 recognises five key areas of sustainability: Financial, Institutional, Environmental, Technological and Social sustainability.

As explained in Section 1.3, sustainability checks related indicators are incorporated into the GSF M&E framework to systematically monitor key sustainability criteria and use the results to make course corrections.

FIETS dimension have been identified for each of the sustainability checks related output and outcome indicators and wherever possible or applicable also for the other indicators included in the GSF result framework.

Financial sustainability means that continuity in the delivery of WASH products and services is assured, because the activities are locally financed (e.g. through taxes, transfers, tariffs, local financing) and do not depend on external financing.

Institutional sustainability means that WASH systems, institutions, policies and procedures at the local level are functional and meet the demand of the users. Households and other WASH service users, service authorities and service providers at the local and the national level are clear on their own roles, tasks and responsibilities, are capable of fulfilling these roles effectively and are transparent to each other. WASH stakeholders work together through a multi-stakeholder approach.

Environmental sustainability implies placing WASH interventions in the wider context of the natural environment and implementing an approach of integrated and sustainable management of water and waste (-water) flows and resources.

Technological sustainability is reached when the technology or hardware needed for the services is maintained, repaired and replaced by local people.

Social sustainability refers to ensuring that the appropriate social conditions and prerequisites are realised and sustained so that the current and future society is able to create healthy and liveable communities. Social sustainable interventions are demand-driven, inclusive (equity), gender equal, culturally sensitive and needs based.

8 More information on the FIETS sustainability approach is available on the FIETS sustainability portal at: http://wash-alliance.org/our-approach/sustainability/

19

http://wash-alliance.org/our-approach/sustainability/

http://wash-alliance.org/our-approach/sustainability/


Section I

National Level Results Monitoring

20


National level indicators

3.1 Introduction The GSF Theory of Change describes how the GSF will contribute to creating the necessary national enabling environment and effective delivery mechanisms to realise Goal 1: National achievement of SDG 6.2.

GSF-supported programmes nurture a national movement and provide dynamic and tailor-made capacity building and advocacy efforts targeting national governments, civil society, and other partners with a view to ensure that systems, structures and even resources are in place to enable replication. It is expected that once targeted administrative areas have proven successful in reaching and sustaining ODF status and are underway to reaching SDG 6.2, these results then inspire geographical scale-up, policy change, costed national roadmaps, and commitment of resources to enable achievement of country-wide results.

As represented by the national level results chain shown by Figure 3.1, it is expected that a strong national enabling environment will support the replication of successful delivery mechanisms in and beyond the GSF targeted administrative areas.

Figure 3.1: GSF results chain at national level

WSSCC contributes to the sub-sector’s overall performance but it is not solely accountable for the results. Within GSF programme target administrative areas, the GSF may be one actor among many in most countries where it works. GSF will therefore seek wherever possible to join and strengthen existing partnerships. In collaboration with its partners, the GSF will support governments to strengthen national systems and capacities. A critical assumption underlying this approach is that GSF supported administrative areas will be showing good progress towards achieving ODF and SDG 6.2. This is turn will generate enthusiasm and excitement to replicate successfully tested approaches and delivery mechanisms nationwide.

In order to measure how well this is happening, the GSF result monitoring framework distinguishes the following two outcomes at national level:

Outcome N.1: National enabling environment for achieving SDG 6.2

Outcome N.2: Effective delivery mechanisms for achieving SDG 6.2

21


The GSF results chain related outcomes and outcome indicators are provided in Annex 1, which can be summarised as shown in table 3.1.

Table 3.1: National level outcomes and outcome indicators Outcomes Outcome Indicators

N.1: National enabling environment for achieving SDG 6.2Substantial political commitment, increased resourcing, and strengthened coordination, capacity and systems for achieving sanitation and hygiene for all

N1.1: Substantial political commitment, increased resourcing, and strengthened capacity, systems, coordination and collaboration is in place for achieving sanitation and hygiene for all

N.2: Effective delivery mechanisms for achieving SDG 6.2Appropriate delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behaviours and services are applied to cover the range of contexts in the country

N2.1: Appropriate approaches and delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behavioural change at scale are applied to cover the range of contexts in the country

3.2 Means of verification The two national level outcomes are measured with the help of composite scorecards. A composite scorecard (hereafter called composite indicator) is formed when individual indicators are compiled into a single score or index. Composite indicators are used to measure and summarise complex or multi-dimensional issues, which cannot be captured by a single indicator. Since composite indicators provide the big picture, they can be easier to interpret than trying to find a trend in many separate indicators. They are also useful as a tool for conveying summary performance information and signalling policy and or intervention priorities.

The main advantages and disadvantages of using composite indicators are given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Pros and cons of composite indicator scorecards Pros Cons

The simple scoring system permits the quantification of change achieved and provides the information needed for reporting.

Scorecards can summarise complex, multi-dimensional realities.

Scorecards are easier to interpret than a battery of many separate indicators as they reduce the visible size of a set of indicators without dropping the underlying information base.

The simple scoring methodology allows for the establishment of an in-depth baseline through an assessment at the onset of the programme.

Scorecards can assess progress towards change over time by comparing scores obtained during the course of the programme against the baseline.

Scorecards may send misleading policy messages if poorly constructed or misinterpreted.

Scorecards may invite simplistic policy conclusions or may be misused, e.g. to support a desired policy.

The selection of the actual indicators and subsequent scoring could be the subject of dispute.

Scorecards may disguise serious failings in some dimensions and increase the difficulty of identifying proper remedial action.

Scorecards may lead to inappropriate policies if dimensions of performance that are difficult to measure are ignored.

The composite scorecards are used to quantify a qualitative process of capacity or system change through the use of appropriate indicators and their corresponding ratings. The scorecards present descriptive sentences (or statements) describing different conditions that need to be in place for each sub-indicator. The scorecards make use of a simplified scoring methodology with four different scores or ratings from NON-EXISTENT (absent) through PARTIAL or GOOD to FULLY PRESENT. The scores are not weighted but are intended to show progress and identify areas for further capacity and system strengthening needs.

22


The scorecard methodology is used for the following main reasons:

1) The methodology allows for more or less consistent scoring within a country with multiple stakeholders and among the different countries which allows for comparing of results and possibly developing of benchmarks; and

2) The methodology shows per sub-indicator what is in place and what not providing detailed and useful insight needed when designing or developing future support interventions.

A typical scorecard looks like this…

Sub-indicator or statement

Scores or ratings

NON-EXISTENT PARTIAL GOOD FULLY PRESENT

None / Absent In between Strong Complete

A national strategy….

None of the criteria or conditions are met

ORThere is no evidence

that supports the other scores

Some of the criteria or conditions are met

Almost all the criteria or conditions are met

All criteria or conditions are met

Actual scores 0% 33% 66% 100%

Data and information required to score the national level composite indicators will be discussed during meetings with the GSF Executing Agency, the WSSCC National Coordinator and members of the GSF Programme Coordination Mechanism (PCM). The actual scoring on the composite indicators is to be done during the same meeting. The scoring is to be backed up by evidence obtained from sector documents and other sources.

To obtain a good and fair insight as well as to build consensus and ownership on the results and way forward, representatives of a number of other key stakeholders may be invited to participate in the meeting, for example the lead government agency responsible for sanitation and hygiene and lead donor and development agencies operating in the sector.

In an interactive participatory process, the composite indicator scorecards are discussed and scored. The actual scoring can best be done as follows:

1) Share the composite indicator scorecard and definitions (Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, and 3.12) and give a brief explanation.

2) Start with sub-indicator or statement 1.1. Explain the sub-indicator or statement as well as the different scoring criteria or specific conditions outlined in the annexes for the different scores.

3) Check the available evidence for each sub-indicator or statement and compare the evidence with the specific requirements for each scoring criteria.

4) Determine the score on the basis of the discussions and the available evidence.

Come prepared which means that participants:

Fully understand the scorecard, the underlying sub-indicators or statements, and the scoring criteria.

Know what kind of evidence is required to be able to determine the individual scores.

Make other evidence available when relevant.

In the ideal situation consensus is reached on the scores. It will be necessary to agree beforehand how to deal with situations where no consensus is reached among the participants involved in the scoring. It might help to identify a particular chairperson to have the final say in case of disagreement on the scoring.

23


The composite indicator scorecards developed to measure the two national level outcomes allow for assigning weights - value judgements – to the different indicator sub-groups. However, weights can have a significant effect on the overall composite indicator scores, which will make it more difficult to use them in a benchmarking framework for ranking the different countries. It is therefore suggested that equal weights are given to the different sub-indicators. This essentially implies that all sub-indicators are “worth” the same in the composite indicator. If deemed necessary weights can be considered at a later stage when more insight has been obtained on the relevant importance of the different sub-indicators.

24


3.3 National level outcome N.1: National enabling environment for achieving SDG 6.2

This outcome is measured with the help of the following composite indicator:

OUTCOME indicator N.1.1: Substantial political commitment, increased resourcing, and strengthened capacity, systems, coordination and collaboration is in place for achieving sanitation and hygiene for all

This outcome specifically measures improved WASH governance and improved collaboration for high-impact change in the sanitation and hygiene sub-sector with the aim to support the country’s drive towards SDG 6.2.

Outcome indicator N.1.1 provides an indication of the performance at national level of the sanitation and hygiene sub-sector in a GSF supported country. This is done by zooming in on the following four key elements: 1) political commitment, 2) sector resourcing, 3) capacity and systems, and 4) sector coordination and collaboration.

A focus on these key (critical) elements is crucial, as achieving SDG 6.2 in many countries will require a strong enabling environment that creates the conditions for transforming how governments work. This will result in services that are government-led, government-owned, and presented as a comprehensive, long-term, cross-sectoral partnership across the public, private and NGO landscape.

“A strong enabling environment at the national level will support replication of success from target administrative areas”.

Evidence in successful countries shows that key success factors for achieving universal access to sanitation for all included: high-level political leadership; ongoing engagement by political leaders in the implementation agenda; effective financing policies; course correction mechanisms at all levels to identify and address obstacles to implementation quickly with remedial policy reforms; a well-coordinated multi-sector approach; capacity building; and continuous monitoring with increasing standards as goals were achieved.

Additional explanations on the four key elements are provided in the Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Explanations of national outcome indicator N.1.1

Key elements Definition Expected change (or outcome)

Substantial political commitment

Political leaders are convinced and motivated to push the sanitation agenda

Political leadership formulates a clear vision and commits itself to drive the agenda

Increased sector resourcing

The ability to raise and allocate sufficient funds from different sources

The sector is able to attract different sources of funding and allocate adequate levels of financial resources for sanitation and hygiene

Strengthened capacity and systems

The necessary capacity and systems are in place to realise SDG target 6.2

National level institutions have the capacity to fulfil their sector roles and responsibilities including the availability of necessary tools and systems

Strengthened sector coordination and

Joint planning, implementation and monitoring and pro-active

Stakeholders contribute towards the Government's vision, and coordinate and cooperate within the

25


Key elements Definition Expected change (or outcome)

collaboration information sharing domain of a government-led coordinating body

The composite indicator with its four key elements is subdivided into 13 individual sub-indicators or statements as shown in table 3.4 below. The scoring of the individual statements or sub-indicators is to be done on the basis of the criteria or conditions provided in table 3.7.

Table 3.4: Composite indicator for outcome N.1

Key element 1 Substantial political commitmentDefinition Political leaders are convinced and motivated to push the sanitation agenda

Outcome Political leadership formulates a clear vision and commits itself to drive the agenda

Sub-indicators or statements

1.1High level government leaders (elected and non-elected) publically advocate for sanitation as a priority problem and initiate or support initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2

1.2Supportive national policies for sanitation and hygiene are in place and based on a common vision to achieve SDG 6.2

1.3A national strategy or roadmap is in place to achieve universal ODF and/or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches at scale

Key element 2 Increased resourcingDefinition The ability to raise and allocate sufficient funds from different sources

Outcome The sector is able to attract different sources of funding and allocate adequate levels of financial resources for sanitation and hygiene


2.1The strategy (or roadmap) to realise universal ODF and/or SDG target 6.2 has a government defined plan and budget which is published and agreed

2.2 Public financial allocations to sanitation as % of GDP are increasing

2.3 % of external aid (out of total external aid) for sanitation and hygiene is increasing

2.4 Total financial resource allocations are sufficient to realise SDG target 6.2

Key element 3 Strengthened capacity and systemsDefinition The necessary capacity and systems are in place to realise SDG target 6.2

Outcome National level institutions have the capacity to fulfil their sector roles and responsibilities including the availability of necessary tools and systems


3.1Human resources with the capacity to plan, implement, monitor and sustain collective behaviour change approaches exist and are adequate to realise the country's vision

3.2National systems to monitor and verify sustainability of equitable sanitation and hygiene interventions and outcomes are in place

3.3National strategies or guidelines to ensure equity and non-discrimination in service delivery are in place

Key element 4 Strengthened sector coordination and collaborationDefinition Joint planning, implementation and monitoring and pro-active information sharing

Outcome Stakeholders contribute towards the Government's vision, and coordinate and cooperate within the domain of a government-led coordinating body


4.1A mandated government agency leads the sanitation and hygiene sub-sector and ensures that all stakeholders are contributing towards SDG target 6.2

4.2A well-functioning coordinating body meets as needed and is used to develop and adjust plans and targets and align approaches

4.3The coordinating body includes all major stakeholders (government agencies, private sector, civil society organisations, NGOs, donor or funding agencies)

26


Explanations on the sub-indicators or statements Whereas the detailed scoring criteria for National level outcome indicator N.1.1 is provided in Table 3.7, general definitions and explanations on the thirteen sub-indicators for this composite outcome indicator are provided in table 3.5 below.

Table 3.5: Explanations on the sub-indicators that make up the composite indicator for outcome N.1Sub-indicators or statements Explanations

1 Substantial political commitment

1.1

High level government leaders (elected and non-elected) publically advocate for sanitation as a priority problem and initiate or support initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2

To move forward with determination, elected and non-elected government leaders are expected to drive the sector in words and deeds. Leadership at the highest possible (political) level is crucial for the sub-sector be successful in the long-term.

1.2Supportive national policies for sanitation and hygiene are in place and based on a common vision to achieve SDG 6.2

Words alone are not sufficient and therefore these verbal commitments need to be translated into national policies. A common vision for a country should give a clear insight in what is to be achieved by when. A strong, ambitious but realistic vision that is embraced by all key stakeholders will help the sub-sector to move forward with one voice and should help to attract both domestic and external support.

1.3

A national strategy or roadmap is in place to achieve universal ODF and/or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches at scale

National strategies or roadmaps provide a clear pathway on how to achieve the national vision or goal: how are we going to get from A to B. These strategies or roadmaps should be ambitious but realistic at the same time and should include costing details.

2 Increased resourcing

2.1

The strategy (or roadmap) to realise universal ODF and/or SDG target 6.2 has a government defined plan and budget which is published and agreed

Multi-annual as well as annual plans and budgets need to be in place to be able and accessible to all key stakeholders to implement the strategy and roadmap and to work towards the country’s vision and goals.

2.2Public financial allocations to sanitation as % of GDP are increasing

It is expected that in most of the GSF countries public budget allocations are insufficient to realise and sustain SDG target 6.2. An increase in public finance allocations to the sub-sector is proof that the (political) leadership is determined to realise the country’s vision.

2.3% of external aid (out of total external aid) for sanitation and hygiene is increasing

Public finance alone is unlikely to be sufficient to realise the country’s vision. External aid is expected to be required to support the implementation of the country’s strategy or roadmap. This sub-indicator is a measure of how successful the government is in attracting additional foreign aid.

2.4Total financial resource allocations are sufficient to realise SDG target 6.2

The combination or sum of all the different resource allocations (public, domestic, private, external, etc.) is in line (sufficient or adequate) with what was costed to implement the national strategy or roadmap.

3 Strengthened capacity and systems

3.1

Human resources with the capacity to plan, implement, monitor and sustain collective behaviour change approaches exist and are adequate to realise the country's vision

Ideally, human resource requirements are included in the national strategy or roadmap. This sub-indicator looks at both quantity (number of people) and quality (skills and competences) of the available human resources to implement the national strategy or roadmap. This sub-indicator looks at all available human resources (public, non-governmental, private, etc.).

27


Sub-indicators or statements Explanations

3.2

National systems to monitor and verify sustainability of equitable sanitation and hygiene interventions and outcomes are in place

A functioning national monitoring system that is able to keep track of developments in the sub-sector is a must. The system should be able to monitor progress towards the country’s vision and ideally (over time) monitor the realisation of SDG target 6.2 by using the revised JMP sanitation and hygiene ladders and definitions.

3.3National strategies or guidelines to ensure equity and non-discrimination in service delivery are in place

Equal access to safe sanitation and hygiene facilities is a crucial element of the new SDG target 6.2. Often the poor or those living in remote communities are left behind. What strategies or guidelines are in place to ensure that everyone will benefit from improved sanitation and hygiene practices?

4 Strengthened sector coordination and collaboration

4.1

A mandated government agency leads the sanitation and hygiene sub-sector and ensures that all stakeholders are contributing towards SDG target 6.2

In most countries, multiple ministries and or government agencies are responsible for sanitation and hygiene. There can be distinctions between rural and urban sanitation, sewered and non-sewered sanitation, household and institutional sanitation. Whatever the differences in mandates, it is important that one ministry or government agency is in the lead and responsible for sector coordination.

4.2A well-functioning coordinating body meets as needed and is used to develop and adjust plans and targets and align approaches

Having a clear country vision is not enough to ensure that all stakeholders work towards the same goal. A well-functioning coordination body or mechanism needs to be in place to ensure that the different stakeholders do indeed contribute and work towards the same vision or goal.

4.3

The coordinating body includes all major stakeholders (government agencies, private sector, civil society organisations, NGOs, donor or funding agencies)

Coordinating efforts and ensuring that everybody is on board is crucial to work towards the same goal. This is only possible if all key stakeholders are participating wholeheartedly in the national coordination body or mechanism.

Actual scoring of the sub-indicatorsThe actual scoring of this composite indicator is carried out during a meeting as explained in Section 3.2. The information required for objective scoring will have to be obtained in interviews with key sector stakeholders and backed up by evidence obtained from sector documents.

Detailed guidance on the use of Microsoft Excel reporting workbook is provided in a separate document Global Sanitation Fund Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, Part B: Guidelines for using GSF results reporting tools .

Important notes:

1. The scoring on the individual statements or sub-indicators is to be done on the basis of the criteria or conditions provided in table 3.7.

2. If there is a need to adjust some of the generic criteria for one or more of the different sub-indicators, to reflect the actual situation or specific context in a country, then this is to be documented clearly by updating table 3.7.

3. The lowest score “non-existent” is to be provided automatically in the absence of verifiable evidence. This because external parties (independent reviewers or evaluators) will have to be able to verify the scores independently.

After completing the scoring exercise on the composite outcome indicator, the EA is also expected to complete the four related output indicators. The four outputs are grouped per specific element of the composite

28


outcome indicator as shown in table 3.6. EAs are expected to describe how the GSF programme has specifically contributed to each element.

Table 3.6: Output indicators for outcome N.1Output Indicators Explanations

1.1Outputs related to 1) Substantial political commitment

Explain how GSF lobby and advocacy activities have contributed to increased national political commitment and/or the development of sector policies and strategies to realise SDG target 6.2

1.2 Outputs related to 2) Increased resourcingExplain how GSF activities have contributed to the development of financing strategies and/or enhanced transparency and accountability

1.3Outputs related to 3) Strengthened capacity and systems

Explain how GSF activities have contributed to sector capacity strengthening initiatives and/or the development of systems to monitor and verify equitable sanitation and hygiene interventions and outcomes

1.4Outputs related to 4) Strengthened sector coordination and collaboration

Explain how GSF activities have contributed to the initiation and/or functioning of a national level coordinating body or structure

29

Table 3.7: Criteria for scoring National level outcome indicator N.1.1

Important note: The following table provides a set of generic criteria for the different sub-indicators. These may have to be adjusted locally to reflect the actual situation in the country.

Key elements and statements

Criteria for scoringNON-EXISTENT PARTIAL GOOD FULLY PRESENT

1 Substantial political commitment

1.1

High level government leaders (elected and non-elected) publically advocate for sanitation as a priority problem and initiate or support initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2

Criteria High level government leaders are

NOT playing a visible public role

Criteria 1) High level government leaders are

playing a leading role in the public discourse



2) Their communications stress the importance of sanitation and hygiene and the need to improve sanitation and hygiene conditions



2) Their communications stress the importance of sanitation and hygiene and the need to improve sanitation and hygiene conditions

3) They are actively involved in initiating or supporting initiatives to realise SDG 6.2

Evidence There is no evidence that high level

government leaders are playing an active role

Evidence Newspaper articles, tweets, blogs and

so on


so on


so on, and other evidence that shows their active involvement

1.2

Supportive national policies for sanitation and hygiene are in place and based on a common vision to achieve SDG 6.2

Criteria There are NO specific national

sanitation and hygiene policies to guide the sector

Criteria1) A national policy for sanitation and

hygiene exists (either as a standalone policy or as part of a broader WASH policy)


hygiene exists 2) The policy provides sufficient

(legislative) guidance to the sector


hygiene exists 2) The policy provides sufficient

(legislative) guidance to the sector 3) The policy is up to date and is based

on a common vision to achieve SDG 6.2

Evidence There is no evidence that national

policies for sanitation and hygiene exists

Evidence The national (WASH) policy that

covers sanitation and hygiene

Evidence The national (WASH) policy that

covers sanitation and hygiene

Evidence The national (WAS) policy that covers

sanitation and hygiene in relation to SDG 6.2

1.3 A national strategy or roadmap is in place to achieve universal ODF and/or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches at scale

Criteria There is NO specific strategy or

roadmap to achieve universal ODF and or SDG 6.2

Criteria1) A national strategy or roadmap to

achieve universal access to sanitation exists



2) The strategy or roadmap promotes the use of collective behaviour change approaches



2) The strategy or roadmap promotes the use of collective behaviour change approaches

3) The strategy or roadmap includes a clear vision for achieving SDG 6.2 by

30



2030

Evidence There is no evidence that a national

strategy or roadmap for sanitation and hygiene exists

Evidence The national strategy or roadmap



2 Increased resourcing

2.1

The strategy (or roadmap) to realise universal ODF and/or SDG target 6.2 has a government defined plan and budget which is published and agreed

Criteria There is NO specific strategy or

roadmap to achieve universal ODF and or SDG 6.2


achieve universal access to sanitation (nation-wide ODF) exists


achieve universal access to sanitation (nation-wide ODF) exists

2) The strategy or roadmap includes clear medium-term targets and is costed properly

Criteria1) A national strategy or roadmap based

on a vision to achieve SDG 6.2 by 2030 exists

2) The strategy or roadmap includes clear medium-term targets and is costed properly

3) The strategy or roadmap is based on sector consensus and is publically available

Evidence There is no evidence that a national

strategy or roadmap for sanitation and hygiene exists


Evidence The national strategy or roadmap with

realistic targets and budgets

Evidence The national strategy or roadmap with

realistic targets and budgets

2.2

Public financial allocations to sanitation as % of GDP are increasing

Criteria Public financial allocations (taxes,

tariffs and other forms of finance such as loans, bonds or equity) have NOT increased during the past year

Criteria 1) Public financial allocations for

sanitation and hygiene have slightly increased during the past year (<10%)

BUT The public financial allocations are

NOT sufficient to implement the national S&H strategy or roadmap


sanitation and hygiene have increased noticeably during the past year (>10%)

BUT The public financial allocations are still

NOT sufficient to implement the national S&H strategy or roadmap


sanitation and hygiene have increased noticeably during the past year

2) The public financial allocations are in line with the funding requirements detailed in the national S&H strategy or roadmap

Evidence Financial allocations have not

increased OR there is no evidence that financial allocations have increased

Evidence Financial allocations can be traced

and show an increase over the previous year




and when compared with the funding requirements detailed in the national strategy or roadmap show that they are sufficient

2.3 % of external aid (out of Criteria External aid (transfers) for sanitation

Criteria 1) External aid for sanitation and



31



total external aid ) for sanitation and hygiene is increasing

and hygiene is NOT increasing hygiene has slightly increased during the past year (<10%)

BUT Actual external aid transfers are less

than official commitments

hygiene have increased noticeably during the past year (>10%)

BUT Actual external aid transfers are less

than official commitments

hygiene have increased noticeably during the past year

2) The actual transfers are in line with official commitments

Evidence External aid has not increased or

there is no evidence that external aid has increased

Evidence External aid transfers can be traced





and when compared with official commitments show that there is a match

2.4Total financial resource allocations are sufficient to realise SDG target 6.2

Criteria Total financial resource allocations

(the “3Ts”) are NOT sufficient to realise SDG 6.2

Criteria 1) Total financial resource allocations

(the “3Ts”) have slightly increased during the past year (<10%)

BUT Total financial resources are NOT

sufficient to realise SDG 6.2


(the “3Ts”) have increased noticeably during the past year (>10%)

BUT Total financial resources are still NOT

sufficient to realise SDG 6.2


(the “3Ts”) have increased noticeably during the past year (>10%)

2) Total financial resources are in line with the funding requirements detailed in the national S&H strategy or roadmap

Evidence Total financial resource allocations are

not sufficient to realise SDG 6.2 OR there is no evidence that financial resources are sufficient

Evidence Total financial resource allocations

can be traced and show an increase over the previous year


can be traced and show an increase over the previous year


can be traced and when compared with the funding requirements detailed in the national strategy or roadmap show that they are sufficient

3 Strengthened capacity and systems3.1 Human resources with

the capacity to plan, implement, monitor and sustain collective behaviour change approaches exist and are adequate to realise the country's vision

Criteria The number of sector professionals,

particularly at subnational level, are NOT sufficient

OR Sector professionals do NOT have the

capacity (knowledge, skills and competences) to realise the country’s vision

Criteria 1) The number of sector professionals,

particularly at subnational level, are somewhat adequate

BUT Sector professionals do NOT have the

capacity (knowledge, skills and competences) to realise the country’s vision


particularly at subnational level, are adequate

2) Sector professionals have the capacity to plan and implement collective behaviour change approaches

BUT Sector professionals do NOT have the

capacity to monitor and sustain the changes


particularly at subnational level, are sufficient

2) Sector professionals have the capacity to plan, implement, monitor and sustain collective behaviour change approaches and to realise the country’s vision

Evidence Human resources are either not

Evidence Human resource needs are detailed in



32



sufficient or do not have the capacity to realise the country’s vision or there is no information available (evidence) on human resources

the national sector strategy (or human resource development plan) and data on current human resources exists and is available



3.2

National systems to monitor and verify sustainability of equitable sanitation and hygiene interventions and outcomes are in place

Criteria There are NO national systems to

monitor and verify S&H interventions and outcomes

Criteria 1) There is a national monitoring system

to monitor progress and results of S&H interventions (minimum standard is that it monitors access to sanitation according to JMP definitions)

BUT The monitoring system does not

provide information required to monitor progress towards SDG 6.2

AND There is NO national (ODF)

verification system


to monitor progress and results of S&H interventions (minimum standard is that it monitors access to sanitation according to JMP definitions)

2) There is a national (ODF) verification system

BUT The monitoring system does not

provide information required to monitor progress towards SDG 6.2

OR The verification system is not

universally applied throughout the country


to monitor progress and results of S&H interventions towards the achievement of SDG 6.2

2) There is a national (ODF) verification system that is universally applied throughout the country

Evidence There is no evidence on the existence

of national monitoring and verification systems

Evidence The national monitoring system exists

and is easy accessible

Evidence National systems to monitor and

verify S&H interventions and outcomes exist and are easily accessible

Evidence National systems to monitor and

verify S&H interventions and outcomes exist and are easily accessible

3.3

National strategies or guidelines to ensure equity and non-discrimination in service delivery are in place

Criteria There are NO national strategies or

guidelines to ensure equity and non-discrimination in service delivery

Criteria 1) Equity and non-discrimination in

service delivery are guiding principles or policy priority issues in the national WASH policies or strategies

BUT NO specific guidance or support

mechanisms are provided in these documents



2) Some limited guidance is provided in these documents



2) Detailed intervention guidelines, and where necessary support mechanisms for specific target groups, are available

Evidence There are no national strategies or

guidelines OR there is no evidence on the existence of national strategies or guidelines

Evidence The national WASH policies and or

strategies are checked for evidence


strategies are checked for evidence


strategies, and specific guidelines and support mechanisms are checked for evidence

33



4 Strengthened sector coordination and collaboration

4.1

A mandated government agency leads the sanitation and hygiene sub-sector and ensures that all stakeholders are contributing towards SDG target 6.2

Criteria There is NO mandated government

agency to lead the sanitation and hygiene sub-sector

Criteria 1) There is a government agency that

meets with sector stakeholders BUT The institutional framework is

fractured and not one agency is solely responsible for or mandated to lead the S&H sub-sector

AND OR The lead agency is not able to lead

and coordinate the range of interventions in the S&H sub-sector

Criteria 1) There is a government agency that is

mandated to lead the S&H sub-sector 2) The lead agency is the designated

contact point for all the sector stakeholders

BUT The lead agency is not optimally

leading and coordinating the range of interventions in the S&H sub-sector

Criteria 1) There is a government agency that is

mandated to lead the S&H sub-sector 2) The lead agency is the designated

contact point for all the sector stakeholders

3) The lead agency is actively leading and coordinating the range of interventions in the S&H sub-sector

Evidence There is no mandated government

agency OR there is no evidence of it

Evidence There is no mandated government

agency OR there is no evidence of it

Evidence Official publications (regulations) on

the roles and responsibilities of the different government agencies in the S&H sub-sector

Evidence Official publications (regulations) on

the roles and responsibilities of the different government agencies in the S&H sub-sector

4.2

A well-functioning coordinating body meets as needed and is used to develop and adjust plans and targets and align approaches

Criteria There is NO officially recognised

national-level coordinating body

Criteria 1) There is a national-level coordinating

body BUT It does not meet on a regular basis AND OR It is only used to share information


body 2) The coordinating body meets on a

regular basis (at least 3 times per year)

BUT It is not really used to develop and

adjust plans and targets and align approaches


body that is led/chaired by the lead agency responsible for the S&H sub-sector

2) The coordinating body meets on a regular basis (at least 3 times per year)

3) The coordinating body is used to develop and adjust plans and targets and align approaches

Evidence There is no national-level coordinating

body OR there is no evidence that it exists

Evidence Invitation letters, meeting minutes

and attendance records are available





4.3 The coordinating body includes all major stakeholders (government agencies, private sector, civil

Criteria There is NO officially recognised

national-level coordinating body


body BUT It does not include all major

stakeholders (for example it is an


body 2) A major section of the sector

stakeholders are invited to participate BUT


body 2) All major sector stakeholders are

members 3) A majority of the members

34



society organisations, NGOs, donor or funding agencies)

inter-departmental body where government officials meet, or a donor meeting where the government meets with donor or funding agencies)

It does not include all stakeholders (for example private sector and or civil society organisations)

(representing a wide range of interests and constituencies) participate in the coordinating body on a regular basis

Evidence There is no national-level coordinating

body OR there is no evidence that it exists







35


3.4 National level outcome N.2: Effective delivery mechanisms for achieving SDG 6.2

This outcome is measured with the help of the following composite indicator:

OUTCOME indicator N.2.1: Appropriate delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behaviours and services are applied to cover the range of contexts in the country

This outcome specifically measures the potential for scaling up sanitation and hygiene interventions through the adoption of proven delivery mechanisms with the aim to support the country’s drive towards SDG 6.2.

Outcome indicator N.2.1 is measured at national level and gives an indication of the adoption of successful delivery mechanisms on the following four key elements: 1) existence of successful delivery mechanisms, 2) adaptation of delivery mechanisms, 3) scaling up of successful delivery mechanisms, and 4) increased investments in successful delivery mechanisms.

A critical assumption underlying the adoption of and increased investment in successful delivery mechanisms is that GSF supported administrative areas will be showing good progress towards achieving ODF and SDG 6.2. It is expected that this in turn will generate enthusiasm and excitement to replicate and scale up proven delivery mechanisms and approaches nationwide.

Additional explanations on the four key elements are provided in table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Explanations of national outcome indicator N.2.1Key elements Definition Expected change

Existence of successful delivery mechanisms

Appropriate delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behaviours and services to cover the range of contexts in the country

Existence of delivery mechanisms to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes and accelerate progress towards SDG target 6.2

Adaptation of delivery mechanisms

The ability to adapt or modify delivery mechanisms on the basis of evidence-based monitoring and learning

The most efficient and effective delivery mechanisms exist and are applied to accelerate progress towards SDG target 6.2

Scaling up of successful delivery mechanisms

Successful delivery mechanisms are replicated to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes to new areas in the country

Scaling up and accelerating progress towards SDG target 6.2 is done on the basis of proven delivery mechanisms

Increased investments in successful delivery mechanisms

Additional resources become available as a consequence of the existence and application of successful delivery mechanisms

Increased investments in the sanitation and hygiene sector

The composite indicator with its four key elements is subdivided into 12 individual sub-indicators or statements as shown in table 3.9 below. The scoring of the individual statements or sub-indicators is to be done on the basis of the criteria or conditions provided in table 3.12.

36


Table 3.9: Composite indicator for outcome N.2Key element 1 Existence of successful delivery mechanisms

Definition Appropriate delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behaviours and services to cover the range of contexts in the country

Outcome Existence of delivery mechanisms to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes and accelerate progress towards SDG target 6.2


1.1There is a range of (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms, based on collective behaviour change approaches, that are appropriate for the different contexts in the country

1.2The delivery mechanisms include provisions to ensure equitable access to sanitation and hygiene services by paying special attention to women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

1.3Successful delivery mechanisms are documented and disseminated within and outside the country

Key element 2 Adaptation of delivery mechanisms

Definition The ability to adapt or modify delivery mechanisms on the basis of evidence-based monitoring and learning

Outcome The most efficient and effective delivery mechanisms exist and are applied to accelerate progress towards SDG target 6.2


2.1 A functioning national level multi-actor learning platform or learning mechanism exists

2.2The national level multi-actor learning platform provides a mechanism for GSF (and other development partners) to discuss progress and share experience

2.3The national level multi-actor learning platform is used to identify what works and what does not work by analysing, discussing and sharing monitoring results and other field-based evidence

Key element 3 Scaling up of successful delivery mechanisms

Definition Successful delivery mechanisms are replicated to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes to new areas in the country

Outcome Scaling up to accelerate progress is done on the basis of proven delivery mechanisms


3.1National government advocates and promotes the application of successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms by sub-national authorities and development partners

3.2Successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms are replicated in areas with increasingly more difficult contexts

3.3An increasing number of stakeholders are adopting and applying GSF supported delivery approaches beyond GSF supported areas

Key element 4 Increased investments in successful delivery mechanisms

Definition Additional resources become available as a consequence of the existence and application of successful delivery mechanisms

Outcome Increased investments in the sanitation and hygiene sector


4.1National government actively seeks internal and external investments to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms to new areas

4.2Increasing investments or funding levels are secured to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms

4.3The scale of sanitation and hygiene interventions is increasing country-wide and this is reflected in coverage figures

Explanations on the sub-indicators or statements Whereas the detailed scoring criteria for National level outcome indicator N.1.2 is provided in Table 3.12, general definitions and explanations on the twelve sub-indicators for this composite outcome indicator are provided in table 3.10 below.

37


Table 3.10: Explanations on the sub-indicators that make up the composite indicator for outcome N.2Sub-indicators or statements Explanations

1 Existence of successful delivery mechanisms

1.1

There is a range of (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms, based on collective behaviour change approaches, that are appropriate for the different contexts in the country

GSF strongly believes that sanitation and hygiene conditions in its target communities can only improve if programmes focus on behaviour change and when this is done collectively by a community instead of by individual households. The development, testing and refinement of collective behaviour change approaches in GSF target areas should lead to models that can be replicated and scaled up in other parts of the country. However, what works in one specific area does not necessarily works in other areas of the country. Consider for example geographic, social, ethnic, socio-economic and other differences.

1.2

The delivery mechanisms include provisions to ensure equitable access to sanitation and hygiene services by paying special attention to women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

SDG target 6.2 specifically mentions that we need to “pay attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situation”. Annex 3 provides further details on how this is to be interpreted but this sub-indicator is primarily about ensuring equity and dignity for all. Unless specific provisions or measures are put in place some people will (continue to) suffer (e.g. extra burden on women and girls) and some people will be left behind (e.g. the poor).

1.3Successful delivery mechanisms are documented and disseminated within and outside the country

You may have developed and tested a successful collective behaviour change approach or delivery mechanism but unless they are well documented and shared outside the GSF programme area they will be of no use to contribute to overcoming the global sanitation and hygiene crisis. Documented approaches backed up by hard evidence that they work are GSF’s contribution to realising national and international strategies and or roadmaps.

2 Adaptation of delivery mechanisms

2.1A functioning national level multi-actor learning platform or learning mechanism exists

Learning at all levels is a crucial prerequisite for the sector to move forward more effectively and efficiently and for all stakeholders to contribute maximally to the national vision and goals. The GSF programme is expected to contribute to national level learning by initiating or supporting multi-actor learning platforms or learning mechanisms.

2.2

The national level multi-actor learning platform provides a mechanism for GSF (and other development partners) to discuss progress and share experience

Similar to the coordination body, the multi-actor learning platform should consist of all relevant sector stakeholders and should be organised on a regular basis and provide a platform for discussing progress and sharing experiences. Take note that the coordinating body and the learning platform could be the same body.

2.3

The national level multi-actor learning platform is used to identify what works and what does not work by analysing, discussing and sharing monitoring results and other field-based evidence

The learning platform should go beyond informing each other of what is being done in the field and should really focus on identifying and understanding of what works and what does not work. Understanding the context in which a particular approach seems to work is important information that will help to assess whether the approach can work in other areas and contexts.

3 Scaling up of successful delivery

38


Sub-indicators or statements Explanations mechanisms

3.1

National government advocates and promotes the application of successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms by sub-national authorities and development partners

Successful approaches should be considered for replication and scaling up in other areas by both government agencies and other development partners. The government has a crucial role to play here to ensure consistency in and harmonisation of approaches.


Again, what works in one area may not necessarily work in other (more difficult) areas in the country. It is however important that successful (proven) approaches and delivery mechanisms are tested and where necessary adapted in other areas.

3.3An increasing number of stakeholders are adopting and applying GSF supported delivery approaches beyond GSF supported areas

Are we able to develop successful approaches or delivery mechanisms and are we able to convince others of what works? How many stakeholders are adopting the GSF supported delivery approaches, which ensure equity and sustainability?

4 Increased investments in successful delivery mechanisms

4.1

National government actively seeks internal and external investments to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms to new areas

Are GSF supported delivery mechanisms used to seek for additional internal and external investments? Is the government taking a leading role in securing additional investments in the sector?

4.2Increasing investments or funding levels are secured to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms

Funding levels are increasing as a consequence of promoting (and selling) successful GSF supported delivery mechanisms.

4.3The scale of sanitation and hygiene interventions is increasing country-wide and this is reflected in coverage figures

Coverage figures are increasing or accelerating in line with expectations as laid down in national strategies and roadmaps. Funding levels are sufficient or adequate to achieve the national targets.

Actual scoring of the sub-indicatorsThe actual scoring of this composite indicator is carried out during a meeting as explained in Section 3.2. The information required for objective scoring will have to be obtained in interviews with key sector stakeholders and backed up by evidence obtained from sector documents.

Detailed guidance on the use of Microsoft Excel reporting workbook is provided in a separate document Global Sanitation Fund Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, Part B: Guidelines for using GSF results reporting tools .

Important notes:

1. The scoring on the individual statements or sub-indicators is to be done on the basis of the criteria or conditions provided in table 3.12.

2. If there is a need to adjust some of the generic criteria for one or more of the different sub-indicators, to reflect the actual situation or specific context in a country, then this is to be documented clearly by updating table 3.12.

3. The lowest score “non-existent” is to be provided automatically in the absence of verifiable evidence. This because external parties (independent reviewers or evaluators) will have to be able to verify the scores independently.

39


After completing the scoring exercise on the composite outcome indicator, the EA is also expected to complete the four related output indicators. The four outputs are grouped per specific element of the composite outcome indicator as shown in table 3.11. EAs are expected to describe how the GSF programme has specifically contributed to each element.

Table 3.11: Output indicators for outcome N.2 Output Indicators Explanations

2.1Outputs related to 1) Existence of successful delivery mechanisms

Explain how GSF activities have contributed to the development and or documentation of effective delivery mechanisms

2.2Outputs related to 2) Adaptation of delivery mechanisms

Explain how GSF activities have contributed to sector learning and/or the adaptation of existing delivery mechanisms

2.3Outputs related to 3) Scaling up of successful delivery mechanisms

Explain how GSF activities have contributed to the uptake of successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms by sub-national authorities and development partners

2.4Outputs related to 4) Increased investments in successful delivery mechanisms

Explain how GSF (lobby and advocacy) activities have contributed to increasing levels of investments in successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms

40

Table 3.12: Criteria for scoring National level outcome indicator N.2.1

Important note: The following table provides a set of generic criteria for the different sub-indicators. These may have to be adjusted locally to reflect the actual situation in the country.



1 Existence of successful delivery mechanisms

1.1

There is a range of (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms, based on collective behaviour change approaches, that are appropriate for the different contexts in the country

Criteria There are NO delivery mechanisms

appropriate for the different contexts in the country

Criteria 1) There are a few different delivery

mechanisms applied in the countryBUT These are not based on collective

behaviour change approaches

Criteria 1) There are a number of different

delivery mechanisms applied in the country

2) Some or all of them are based on collective behaviour change approaches

BUT The range of delivery mechanisms

does not cover all the different contexts in the country

Criteria 1) There is a range of different delivery

mechanisms 2) Some or all of them are based on

collective behaviour change approaches

3) They cover all the different contexts (e.g. geographic, socio-economic, etc.) in the country

Evidence There is no evidence that there are

different delivery mechanisms

Evidence Policy documents, guidelines. articles,

papers, newsletters and so on outlining the different delivery mechanisms

Evidence Policy documents, guidelines, articles,




1.2

The delivery mechanisms include provisions to ensure equitable access to sanitation and hygiene services by paying special attention to women and girls and those in vulnerable situations



OR The available delivery mechanisms do

NOT include provisions to ensure equitable access to S&H facilities and services

Criteria1) Equitable access is mentioned in the

documentation on delivery mechanisms

BUT NO details are provided on how

equitable access is to be achieved for example for women and girls and those in vulnerable situations (e.g. the poor, female-headed households and people with a disability)


documentation on delivery mechanisms

2) It especially addresses the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations (e.g. the poor, female-headed households and people with a disability)

BUT There are NO clear provisions or

guidance on how to address their needs or how to support them


documentation on the different delivery mechanisms

2) It especially addresses the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

3) The delivery mechanisms provide sufficient provisions and or adequate guidance on how to address their needs and how to support them


different delivery mechanisms or the documentation does not provide insight in special equity related provisions







41



1.3

Successful delivery mechanisms are documented and disseminated within and outside the country



OR The delivery mechanisms are NOT

well documented

Criteria1) Some of the delivery mechanisms are

documented BUT The documentation is not detailed

enough for others to apply them

Criteria1) Some or all of the delivery

mechanisms are documented 2) The documentation provides

sufficient guidance and details so that other interested organisations can adopt and apply them

BUT The documentation is not actively

disseminated within and outside the country

Criteria1) Some or all of the delivery

mechanisms are documented 2) The documentation provides

sufficient guidance and details so that other interested organisations can adopt and apply them

3) The documentation is actively disseminated within and outside the country and therefore easily available to interested parties


different delivery mechanisms or they are not well documented

Evidence Documentation on the different

delivery mechanisms (e.g. guidelines, briefing notes, etc.)


delivery mechanisms (e.g. guidelines, briefing notes, etc.)


delivery mechanisms are accessible on the internet

2 Adaptation of delivery mechanisms

2.1

A functioning national level multi-actor learning platform or learning mechanism exists

Criteria There is NO national level multi-

stakeholder learning platform or learning mechanism

Criteria1) There are institutionalized learning

platforms and or mechanisms at sector level (e.g.: joint sector reviews, donor-government platforms, national learning alliance, thematic working groups)

BUTThese learning platforms or

mechanisms are NOT sufficiently representative of the different sector stakeholders

Criteria 1) There are institutionalized learning


2) These learning platforms or mechanisms are sufficiently representative of the different sector stakeholders

BUTThese learning platforms or

mechanisms are NOT linked to the decentralised levels



2) These learning platforms or mechanisms are sufficiently representative of the different sector stakeholders

3) These learning platforms or mechanisms are linked to the decentralised levels

Evidence There is no evidence of national level

learning platforms or learning mechanisms

Evidence Invitation letters, meeting minutes,

attendance records, articles, papers, newsletters and so on





2.2 The national level multi-actor learning platform provides a mechanism for GSF (and other




platforms and or mechanisms at sector level

BUT



2) GSF and likeminded development



2) GSF and likeminded development

42



development partners) to discuss progress and share experience

GSF and other development partners are NOT invited to these learning platforms or mechanisms

partners are actively participating in these platforms, meetings or events

BUTThe learning platforms or events do

NOT provide an opportunity to discuss progress and share experience

partners are actively participating in these platforms, meetings or events

3) The learning platforms or events do provide an opportunity to discuss progress and share experience



Evidence There is no evidence of GSF and other

development partners attending the learning platforms or associated meetings or events





2.3

The national level multi-actor learning platform is used to identify what works and what does not work by analysing, discussing and sharing monitoring results and other field-based evidence





BUTMonitoring results and other field

based evidence are NOT shared and discussed



2) Monitoring results and other field based evidence are shared and discussed in the learning platforms or events

BUTThe information is NOT used to

adjust or modify strategies, work plans and or approaches if and when relevant



2) Monitoring results and other field based evidence are shared and discussed in the learning platforms or events

3) The reflections from these platforms are systematically used to adjust or modify strategies, work plans and or approaches if and when relevant



Evidence There is no evidence that monitoring

results and other field based evidence is shared and discussed during the learning platforms or associated meetings or events

Evidence Records (e.g. meeting minutes)

exist that information from monitoring, experiences and lessons learned is documented and shared with the relevant stakeholders

Evidence Records exist that prove that

strategies, work plans and or approaches are modified on the basis of information from monitoring, experiences and lessons learned

3 Scaling up of successful delivery mechanisms3.1 National government

advocates and promotes the application of successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms by sub-national authorities and development partners

Criteria National government actors are not

actively advocating and or promoting the application of successful programme approaches

Criteria 1) National government actors advocate

and promote the application of successful programme approaches by subnational authorities

BUTThere is NO clear policy that provides



2) Clear policies and or guidelines exist that provide guidance to subnational



2) Clear policies and or guidelines exist that provide guidance to subnational

43



guidance to development partners on what types of approaches to follow

authorities and development partners on what types of approaches to follow

BUTNot enough is done to ensure

consistency in and harmonisation of approaches across the country

authorities and development partners on what types of approaches to follow

3) No conflicting policies and approaches are promoted in the country (e.g. non-subsidy approach versus subsidised service delivery approaches)

Evidence There is no evidence that national

level government actors advocate and promote the application of successful programme approaches

Evidence Policy documents, guidelines, news

articles, papers, newsletters and so on





3.2

Successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms are replicated in areas with increasingly more difficult contexts

Criteria There are NO attempts or initiatives

to test successful approaches in more challenging contexts

Criteria1) Successful approaches are tested or

applied in other more challenging contexts

BUT Approaches are NOT adjusted to fit

specific contexts and or challenges

Criteria1) Successful approaches are tested or


2) Approaches are adapted (modified, adjusted) to fit specific challenging contexts in the country

BUT The range of approaches currently

applied do NOT result in successful outcomes across the country

Criteria 1) Successful approaches are tested or


2) Approaches are adapted (modified, adjusted) to fit specific challenging contexts in the country

3) Different approaches are successfully applied to cover the range of contexts in the country

Evidence There is no evidence that proven

programme approaches have been applied successfully in different areas or contexts







3.3 An increasing number of stakeholders are adopting and applying GSF supported delivery approaches beyond GSF supported areas

Criteria There are no attempts to encourage

other stakeholders to adopts and apply successful (GSF supported) approaches

Criteria1) The government (supported by the

GSF programme) is actively promoting successful (GSF supported) approaches to other stakeholders

BUT Other stakeholders do NOT appear

that interested to adopt GSF supported approaches


GSF programme) is actively promoting successful (GSF programme) approaches to other stakeholders

2) Other stakeholders are actively engaging with government and the GSF programme to adopt successful approaches

BUT The interest has NOT yet resulted in

increased uptake of successful


GSF programme) is actively promoting successful (GSF programme) approaches to other stakeholders

2) Other stakeholders are actively engaging with government and the GSF programme to adopt successful approaches

3) An increasing number of other stakeholders are applying successful (GSF supported) approaches across

44



approaches the country

Evidence There is no evidence that GSF

supported approaches are adopted by other stakeholders

Evidence News articles, papers, newsletters,

blogs, project documents, meeting minutes and so on





4 Increased investments in successful delivery mechanisms

4.1

National government actively seeks internal and external investments to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms to new areas

Criteria Government is not actively seeking

financing to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes

Criteria 1) The government feels responsible for

seeking additional investments BUT The government is NOT actively

seeking domestic and foreign investments to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes across the country


seeking additional investments 2) The government is taking some action

to increase domestic and foreign investments to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes across the country


seeking additional investment 2) Government is actively seeking

domestic and foreign investments to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes across the country

Evidence There is no evidence that the

government is actively seeking increased financing/investments


blogs, project documents, sector assessments, annual GLAAS reports and so on





4.2

Increasing investments or funding levels are secured to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms

Criteria Investment and or funding levels are

not increasing

Criteria 1) Investments and or funding levels

have increased if compared to the previous year

BUT The government is NOT actively

seeking domestic and foreign investments to scale up sanitation and hygiene programmes across the country

Criteria 1) Investments and funding levels have

increased if compared to the previous year

2) Increased funding levels are in line with financial requirements as detailed in the national strategy or roadmap

BUT Funding levels are NOT in line with

official commitments as expressed in approved annual budgets

Criteria 1) Investment and funding levels have

increased if compared to the previous year

2) Increased funding levels are in line with financial requirements as detailed in the national strategy or roadmap

3) Funding levels are in line with official commitments as expressed in approved annual budgets

Evidence There is no evidence that investments

or funding levels are increasing

Evidence News articles, papers, sector

assessments, annual GLAAS reports and so on





4.3 The scale of sanitation and hygiene interventions is increasing country-wide and this is reflected in

Criteria The scale of sanitation and hygiene

interventions is NOT increasing across the country

Criteria 1) The scale of sanitation and hygiene

interventions is increasing BUT


interventions is increasing 2) The current trend is sufficient to


interventions is increasing 2) The current trend is sufficient to

45



coverage figures

The current trend is NOT sufficient to achieve the national ambitions and or targets

achieve the national ambitions and or targets

BUT Certain disadvantaged groups or

difficult geographic areas are lacking behind

achieve the national ambitions and or targets

3) Nobody is left behind; increases in coverage are fairly spread across the country

Evidence There is no evidence in terms of

coverage figures that sanitation and hygiene interventions are increasing







46


Section II

Subnational Level Results Monitoring

47

GSF Results monitoring guidelines| Part A

Subnational level indicators

1.1 Introduction Demonstrating that achieving sanitation at scale, covering entire administrative areas, is possible lies at the heart of the Theory of Change. Although the notion of replicability is built in from the start, concrete achievements can catalyse the replication of approaches and lessons learned for geographical scale-up to advance towards national coverage and empower people to realise their human right to sanitation and hygiene. The Theory of Change describes how the GSF will contribute to designing and testing approaches to support achieving ODF status in targeted communities and then realising SDG 6.2 within entire targeted administrative areas.

The starting point for all GSF work evolves around collective behaviour change activities that facilitate communities to achieve ODF status. ODF through collective behaviour change is the basis for building a movement and strengthening the systems needed to prevent slippage, ensure sustainability and universality and to progress up the sanitation ladder. Sustaining ODF status and moving beyond ODF towards SDG 6.2 requires intense follow-up and retriggering accompanied by advocacy, capacity and system building, innovation, and supply side activities.

Figure 4.1 shows the fundamental subnational level building blocks of the entire GSF approach to work towards progressive achievement of SDG 6.2 within an entire Administrative Area.

Figure 4.1: GSF results chain at subnational level

The GSF contributes to the subnational level outcome S1: SDG 6.2 in Targeted Administrative Areas, but the programme is not solely accountable for this outcome. The GSF may be one actor among many in GSF programme target administrative areas. GSF will therefore seek wherever possible to join and strengthen

48


existing partnerships. In collaboration with its partners, the GSF will support subnational governments to strengthen their systems and capacities and achieve SDG 6.2 in targeted administrative areas.

The GSF programme is however largely responsible for the intermediate outcomes in particular for intermediate out S.1: Sustained ODF communities. The achievement of the other three intermediate outcomes will likely require interactions with and contributions from other actors. The GSF result monitoring framework distinguishes the following outcomes and intermediate outcomes at subnational level:

Outcomes

Outcome S.1: SDG 6.2 in Targeted Administrative Areas

Intermediate outcomes

Intermediate outcome S.1: Sustained ODF communities

Intermediate outcome S.2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG 6.2

Intermediate Outcome S3: Subnational political & financial commitment

Intermediate outcome S4: Subnational capacities and systems

1.2 Data collection methods The quality of the data collection methods has a direct impact on the quality of the information. Ensuring quality data requires that the data is collected in a reliable manner to ensure correctness, completeness, consistency, and uniformity. The process of data collection must be systematic and based on well-defined procedures that are appropriate to the context within which the data are being collected.

The majority of indicators at the subnational level are monitored regularly through the GSF routine monitoring systems, which in a number of countries may be part of a national monitoring system. The actual data collection methodology to be employed depends on the nature of the individual indicators, but in general, the following methodologies are expected to be used. In the detailed indicator tables, included the following sections, suggested data collection methods are mentioned.

Community level ODF or SDG status verificationVerification means carrying out an inspection to assess whether a community is Open Defecation Free (ODF) or whether it has reached SDG 6.2 status. Certification is the confirmation of a specific status and its official recognition. Ideally, national verification and certification systems are used for this purpose. For the purpose of reporting the results to the GSF secretariat, the implementing partners are expected to follow the definition and criteria prescribed by the GSF Secretariat. Details on the GSF definition and criteria are provided in Box 2 in Section 1.3.

Important note: In the absence of a national SDG verification system, the Executing Agency together with the implementing partner(s), in close consultation with the Project Coordinating Mechanism (PCM), will have to support the local authorities to develop a temporary but adequate third party verification system. The basis of any SDG 6.2 verification system should be the JMP normative interpretation of SDG target 6.2 provided in Annex 2 of these guidelines.

Service level monitoring A number of key outcome indicators require detailed data on the sanitation and hygiene ladders. The different rungs of the sanitation and hygiene ladders give a good indication of the actual level of services households have access to and are in fact using and or enjoying. The revised JMP sanitation and hygiene ladders will be used to measure the access to sanitation and hygiene facilities. In the ideal situation, this information is collected with the help of national (service level) monitoring systems. However, it is expected that for the time

49


being in most cases this information will have to be collected by the implementing partners as part of regular programme results monitoring exercises.

The data is to be collected at household level for household related sanitation and hygiene service levels and at institutional level for the schools and health facilities related sanitation and hygiene service levels. The actual data collection method is expected to be a combination of structured interviews and direct observations.

Structured interviews Information is obtained through an interview with the respondent (the interviewee) and the information is then recorded by enumerators (the interviewers). As much as possible structured interviews are to be performed by using survey forms or questionnaires with closed-ended questions9 as this will greatly facilitate and simplify the task of analysing the collected data. Although open-ended questions10 are sometimes unavoidable, these should be limited as much as possible.

Direct observations Information is obtained by watching (observing) behaviour, practices, events, or physical characteristics. For example, observations will have to be carried out to assess the physical characteristics and conditions of sanitation and hygiene facilities. Direct observations can also be used to verify and validate the information obtained during interviews.

Self-reportingThe main alternative to conducting interviews and or making direct observations is to require respondents to provide details about their own circumstances, specific conditions or programme initiated changes. Self-reporting requires high levels of literacy, understanding of the questions and co-operation. One obvious limitation of self-reporting is that they are subject to social desirability bias. Self-reported answers may be exaggerated, as respondents may be too embarrassed to reveal certain private details. Respondents might also simply be mistaken or misremember or misjudge the available evidence.

Guided self-assessments Information is obtained through a participatory process whereby the respondent, who is guided and supported by the interviewer, determines how to answer a specific question. This methodology is particularly appropriate for the capacity and system building related outcome indicators captured in intermediate outcomes S.3 and S.4 as it enables an organisation or entity to look in detail at how effectively it functions and to identify priority capacity development needs.

Outcome Surveys A small number of indicators are monitored through the periodic external programme outcome surveys. Outcomes surveys are explained in Section 1.2.

9 Closed questions are questions which provide a limited choice (for example, a participant's age), especially if the answer must be taken from a predetermined (short) list. Such questions provide quantitative data, which is easy to analyse. However, these questions do not allow the respondents to give in-depth insights.

10 Open questions are questions, which invite the respondent to provide answers in their own words and provide qualitative data. Although these types of questions are more difficult to analyse, they can produce more in-depth responses.

50


1.3 Subnational level outcome S.1: SDG 6.2 in Targeted Administrative Areas

This outcome measures the achievement of realising universal access to sustainable sanitation and hygiene facilities and behaviours (by SDG definition11) in GSF targeted administrative areas. Outcome S.1 uses the definitions developed for the SDG global indicator 6.2.1 which measures the proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a handwashing facility with soap and water. Additional explanations and definition of SDG target 6.2 is provided in annex 2.

This subnational outcome is measured with the help of the following three outcome indicators:

Outcome indicator 1.1A: # of administrative areas that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems

Outcome indicator 1.1B: # of communities that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems

Outcome indicator 1.1C: # of people living in communities that have achieved SDG target 6.2

Outcome indicator S.1 provides an indication of the success of GSF programme implementation by measuring the extent or magnitude of SDG target 6.2 achievements in GSF targeted administrative areas. It is expected that the realisation of SDG 6.2 is the ultimate goal of the countries supported by the GSF programme. As this cannot be realised overnight, and it is recognised it may be some time before programmes report results under this outcome, the four subnational level intermediate outcomes should be seen as building blocks to work towards outcome S.1.

The adoption of safely managed sanitation creates a new service level and consequently represents an additional ‘rung’ at the top of the JMP sanitation service ladder12 as shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: JMP global monitoring ladder for sanitation

11 SDG definition for target 6.2: by 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.

12 The sanitation and hygiene service levels and definitions have been adopted from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation website. More information on JMP WASH service levels is available on: https://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/SDG-6-2-1-Safely-Managed-Sanitation-Services-and-Hygiene.pdf

51

https://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/SDG-6-2-1-Safely-Managed-Sanitation-Services-and-Hygiene.pdf


As the sanitation ladder shows, it can be safely concluded that it will cost more time, more effort and more (financial) resources the higher one gets on the sanitation service ladder. It is also expected that the level of convenience and comfort to the users as well as the durability and thus sustainability of the facilities will increase with every incremental ‘rung’ on the ladder.

Figure 4.4 shows a more detailed diagram of outcome S.1 and the three related outcome indicators.

Figure 4.4: Detailed results chain for subnational outcome S.1

The outcome indicators for outcome S.1 can be summarised as shown in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Result framework for outcome S.1Outcome S.1: SDG 6.2 in targeted administrative areasOutcome indicators

SOC 1.1A: # of administrative areas that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems

SOC 1.1B: # of communities that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems

SOC 1.1C: # of people living in communities that achieved SDG target 6.2

Box 1: Targeted Administrative AreasA targeted administrative area (TAA) can be a commune, a municipality, a district, a woreda, or any other nationally recognised administrative area. It should be a unit with

52


clear accountability for hygiene and sanitation. Often it will be the principal unit of decentralised/local government that encompasses scale, and can be further sub-divided into lower levels of local government including communities or villages.

Additional information on the outcome indicatorsDetailed information on each of the outcome indicators under outcome S.1 can be found in table 4.2.

The data required to report on these indicators will have to be provided by the implementing partners. However, the data is to be checked and validated by the Executing Agency before it is reported to the GSF Secretariat in Geneva.

53

Table 4.2: Additional information on the outcome indicators for outcome S.1

OUTCOME indicators Definitions Additional explanations

Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation

Level and method of assessment

Data source

SOC 1.1A: # of administrative areas that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems

GSF targeted administrative areas that have achieved universal access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

Administrative areas are nationally recognised divisions that are targeted in their entirety by the GSF programme (see Box 1 for further definition). Administrative areas need to be clearly defined for each country.

Data required to complete this outcome indicator will have to come from administrative area level SDG status verification exercises. The basis of any SDG 6.2 verification system should be the JMP normative interpretation of SDG target 6.2 provided in Annex 2 of these guidelines.

Verified using national systems refers to the formal inspection process adopted whereby areas receive official recognition (and certification) of SDG status.

M 12MRural/(peri) urban

centresLevel of TAA

Administrative area levelDepending on national verification (and certification) systems

IP monitoring reports verified by data from national MIS systems if functioning

SOC 1.1B: # of communities that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems

GSF targeted communities that have achieved universal access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

Communities refer to a village-related social group, settlement or administrative division engaged by the programme. The definition of community needs to be clearly defined for each country.

Data required to complete this outcome indicator will have to come from community level SDG status verification exercises. The basis of any SDG 6.2 verification system should be the JMP normative interpretation of SDG target 6.2 provided in Annex 2 of these guidelines.


M 12M Rural/(peri) urban

Community levelDepending on national verification (and certification) systems


SOC 1.1C: # of people living in communities that achieved SDG target 6.2

Entire population living in GSF targeted communities that have achieved universal access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

Communities refer to a village-related social group, settlement or administrative division engaged by the programme.

Data required to complete this outcome indicator will have to come from community level SDG status verification exercises. The basis of any SDG 6.2 verification system should be the JMP normative interpretation of SDG target 6.2 provided in Annex 2 of these guidelines.

M 12M Rural/ (peri) urban Community levelDepending on national verification (and certification) systems


54

OUTCOME indicators Definitions Additional explanations

Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source


Notes: M = Mandatory for all programmes; O = Optional depending on country specific programme interventions; and OS = Data to be obtained through Outcome Surveys12M = 12 monthly: indicator is to be reported once per year; 6M = 6 monthly: indicator is to be reported two times per year.

55


1.4 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.1: Sustained ODF communities

This intermediate outcome measures the achievement of creating and sustaining Open Defecation Free (ODF) communities in GSF targeted administrative areas. This intermediate outcome is measured with the help of eleven intermediate outcome indicators as shown in Figure 4.6.


1

The activities and outputs related to this intermediate outcome capture the core of the original GSF programme: supporting the creation of ODF communities. The activities focus on creating demand for (improved) sanitation and hygiene facilities, changing sanitation and hygiene behaviours and practices, creating a sense of urgency and supporting communities to take collective action to end open defecation. Programme interventions will also be undertaken at public schools and health facilities in the targeted GSF communities to improve the sanitation and hygiene conditions at these public institutions. To be able to sustain ODF status in the communities, post-ODF strategies or action plans will have to be developed and implemented.

The GSF results framework is presented in Annex 1; the outcome and output indicators for outcome S.1 can be summarised as shown in table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Result framework for intermediate outcome S.1 Intermediate outcome S.1: Sustained ODF communities Intermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

SIO 1.1A: # of targeted administrative areas SOP 1A: Behaviour change SOP 1.1: # of targeted communities in which

56


Intermediate outcome S.1: Sustained ODF communities Intermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (minimally GSF definition)

approaches are implemented in an increasing number of targeted administrative areas and communities

collective sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions (such as CLTS) are implemented

SIO 1.1B: # of targeted communities that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (minimally GSF definition)

SIO 1.1C: # of people living in ODF environments following national criteria (minimally GSF definition)

SIO 1.2A: # of targeted administrative areas that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition)

SIO 1.2B: # of targeted communities that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition)

SIO 1.2C: # of people living in ODF environments following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition)

SIO 1.3: # of people with access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels)

SIO 1.4: # of people with access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level)

SIO 1.5: # of public schools with improved sanitation facilities AND handwashing facilities with water and soap as a result of GSF advocacy (M)

SOP 1.2: # of public schools in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented

SIO 1.6 # of students (boys/girls) attending public schools with improved sanitation facilities AND handwashing facilities with water and soap as a result of GSF advocacy (M)

SOP 1.3: # of students (boys/girls) attending public schools in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented

SIO 1.7: # of public health facilities with improved sanitation facilities which are single-sex and usable AND handwashing facilities with water and soap (JMP: limited service levels)

SOP 1.4: # of health facilities in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented


SIO 1.8: % of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels)

SOP 1B: Post-ODF strategies are developed and implemented

SOP 1.5: # of targeted communities supported through the programme that are implementing a post-ODF action plan

SIO 1.9: % of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level)

SIO 1.10: % of people (women, people with disabilities and people over 65 years) indicating

57



satisfaction with their sanitation facilities

SIO 1.11: % of population reporting strong social norms favouring latrine use

Box 2: GSF Open Defecation Free (ODF) definition During the 2012-2016 Mid-Term Strategic Plan (MTSP) period, WSSCC did not have a unified ODF definition and GSF-supported countries reported on ODF status using their individual country definitions, which differed to varying degrees. Within the new GSF Results Framework, GSF has instituted a minimum ODF standard to which all GSF-supported countries will need to adhere in their reporting. Achievement of Open-defecation free status means that faecal-oral transmission has been terminated in a community. GSF’s definition of ODF includes the following three criteria13: No excreta visible in the open14

All households are using safe15, improved sanitation facilities that separate waste from human contact (at minimum a pit latrine whereby the pit is fully covered by a slab or platform that is solid, of any type of material (concrete, logs with earth or mud, cement, etc.) as long as it adequately covers the pit without exposing the pit content other than through the squatting hole or seat – as per JMP. A drop hole or squatting hole cover is suggested.

Presence of a handwashing facility with water and soap/ash near each toilet. This will mean that henceforth, when GSF reports on numbers of people living in ODF environments across its countries, this will at the very least align with the above three criteria. Individual country programmes may still require additional criteria within their definitions of ODF. GSF programmes operating in countries with an ODF definition that does not meet this minimum GSF ODF criteria will be expected to report on results for the both the national definition and the GSF definition.

13 These three criteria are based on a process of consultation and analysis with GSF and other sector partners, taking into account existing definitions and practices across GSF countries, JMP definitions, and definitions promoted by other agencies in order to work towards more harmonisation across the sector

14 No excreta visible in the open refers first and foremost to human faeces. However, communities are progressively encouraged to also improve management of animal waste, for example through use of animal pens or chicken coops.

15 Safe is defined as no contamination of surface soil, ground water or surface water, excreta inaccessible to animals or flies, no handling of fresh excreta. Safe also includes safety of persons using these facilities from physical danger (snakes, wet soil or open pits) and sexual threat.

58


Additional information on the outcome and output indicatorsDetailed information on each of the outcome and output indicators under intermediate outcome S1 can be found in tables 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.


59

Table 4.4: Additional information on the outcome indicators for intermediate outcome S.1

Intermediate outcome indicators Definitions Additional explanations

Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SIO 1.1A: # of targeted administrative areas that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (minimally GSF definition)

GSF targeted administrative areas that have achieved 100% Open Defecation Free status (by minimally GSF definition) and that have been verified by using national verification (and certification) systems

Administrative areas are nationally recognised divisions that are targeted in their entirety by the GSF programme (see Box 1 for further definition). Administrative areas need to be clearly defined for each country.

ODF status is defined using the GSF minimum standards (see Box 2).

M 6M Rural/ (peri) urbanLevel of TAA



SIO 1.1B# of targeted communities that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (minimally GSF definition)

GSF targeted communities that have achieved 100% Open Defecation Free status (by minimally GSF definition) and that have been verified by using national verification (and certification) systems



M 6MRural/ (peri) urban



SIO 1.1C: # of people living in ODF environments following national criteria (minimally GSF definition)

Entire population living in GSF targeted communities that have achieved 100% Open Defecation Free status (by minimally GSF definition) and that have been verified by using national verification (and certification) systems



M 6M

Rural/(peri) urbanFemale/male

DisabilityOver 65 years

Other vulnerable groups


IP monitoring reports

SIO 1.2A: # of targeted administrative areas that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition)

GSF targeted administrative areas that have achieved 100% Open Defecation Free status and that have been verified by using national verification (and certification) systems

This indicator is only relevant for countries where the national criteria for community ODF does not meet the minimum standards of the GSF ODF criteria. In such cases, programmes are asked to report on the number of communities declared ODF according to national criteria.

M 6MRural/ (peri) urban

Level of TAA



SIO 1.2B: # of targeted communities that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition)

GSF targeted communities that have achieved 100% Open Defecation Free status and that have been verified by using national verification (and certification) systems


M 6MRural/ (peri) urban centres (definition

needed)



SIO 1.2C: # of people living in ODF environments following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition)

Entire population living in GSF targeted communities that have achieved 100% Open Defecation Free status and that have been verified by using national verification (and


M 6M Rural/(peri) urbanFemale/male


Other vulnerable



60


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

certification) systems groups

SIO 1.3: # of people with access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels)

Population with access to an ‘improved’ sanitation facility (JMP definition as explained in Annexes 2 and 3 of these guidelines)

The EA is expected to provide data for each rung of the modified JMP sanitation ladder, namely: 1.3-1: SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES: Number of people

with access to (and use) a SAFELY MANAGED sanitation facility

1.3-2: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) an IMPROVED sanitation facility

1.3-3: LIMITED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) a SHARED sanitation facility of an otherwise acceptable type

1.3-4: UNIMPROVED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) an UNIMPROVED sanitation facility

1.3-5: NO SERVICES: Number of people without access to a sanitation facility and that practice OPEN DEFECATION

M 6M




Household levelService level monitoring (household level structured interviews combined with direct observations of the sanitation facilities)


SIO 1.4: # of people with access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level)

Population with a hand washing facility with water and soap on premises.

On premises means that the facility is inside the property (a building) or on the surrounding area of land that is part of the property.

Handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps, tippy-taps, and jugs or basins designated for handwashing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap, powder detergent, and soapy water but does not include ash, soil, sand or other handwashing agents. The presence of other local alternative materials (e.g. ash) should be reported separately.

The EA is expected to provide data for each rung of the modified JMP hygiene ladder, namely: 1.4-1: BASIC SERVICE: Availability of a handwashing

facility on premises with soap and water 1.4-2: BASIC SERVICE: Availability of a handwashing

facility on premises with water and a substitute for soap

1.4-3: LIMITED SERVICE: Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water

1.4-4: NO SERVICE: No handwashing facility on premises

M 6M






SIO 1.5: # of public schools with improved sanitation facilities AND handwashing facilities with water and

Indicator to be monitored using the JMP institutional sanitation and hygiene service levels ladders (see Annex 3)

This indicator combines the JMP institutional sanitation and hygiene ladder for school into one. For clarity sake data for the sanitation and hygiene ladders are to be provided separately. The EA is expected to provide the

M 12M Rural/(peri) urban Types of public

schools (primary/ secondary)

Community levelInstitutional service level monitoring (structured interviews combined


61


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

soap as a result of GSF advocacy efforts

following data, disaggregated by type of public school (primary and secondary schools):

School sanitation ladder: 1.5A-1 and 1.5B-1: BASIC SERVICE: Improved facilities,

which are single-sex (gender separated) and usable 1.5A-2 and 1.5B-2: LIMITED SERVICE: Improved

facilities, but not single-sex or not usable at time of survey

1.5A-3 and 1.5B-3: NO SERVICE: Unimproved facilities (pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines, bucket latrines)

1.5A-3 and 1.5B-3: NO SERVICE: No toilets or latrines

School hygiene ladder: 1.5A-4 and 1.5B-4: BASIC SERVICE: Handwashing

facilities with water and soap 1.5A-5 and 1.5B-5: LIMITED SERVICE: Handwashing

facilities with water but without soap 1.5A-6 and 1.5B-6: NO SERVICE: Handwashing facilities

with no water 1.5A-6 and 1.5B-6: NO SERVICE: No handwashing

facilities

with direct observations)

SIO 1.6: # of students (boys/girls) attending public schools with improved sanitation facilities AND handwashing facilities with water and soap as a result of GSF advocacy (M)


This indicator combines the JMP institutional sanitation and hygiene ladder for school into one. For clarity sake data for the sanitation and hygiene ladders are to be provided separately. The EA is expected to provide the following data, disaggregated by type of public school (primary and secondary schools) and by girls and boys students:

School sanitation ladder: 1.6A-1 and 1.6B-1: BASIC SERVICE: Improved facilities,

which are single-sex (gender separated) and usable 1.6A-2 and 1.6B-2: LIMITED SERVICE: Improved

facilities, but not single-sex or not usable at time of survey

1.6A-3 and 1.6B-3: NO SERVICE: Unimproved facilities (pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging

M 12M Rural/(peri) urbanTypes of public

schools (primary/ secondary)Girls/boys students

Community levelStructured interviews with headmasters


62


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

latrines, bucket latrines) 1.6A-3 and 1.6B-3: NO SERVICE: No toilets or latrines

School hygiene ladder: 1.6A-4 and 1.6B-4: BASIC SERVICE: Handwashing

facilities with water and soap 1.6A-5 and 1.6B-5: LIMITED SERVICE: Handwashing

facilities with water but without soap 1.6A-6 and 1.6B-6: NO SERVICE: Handwashing facilities

with no water 1.6A-6 and 1.6B-6: NO SERVICE: No handwashing

facilities

SIO 1.7: # of public health facilities with improved sanitation facilities which are single-sex and usable AND handwashing facilities with water and soap (JMP: limited service levels)


This indicator combines the JMP institutional sanitation and hygiene ladder for health facilities into one. For clarity sake data for the sanitation and hygiene ladders are to be provided separately. The EA is expected to provide the following data against each rung of the ladder:

Hygiene facilities sanitation ladder: 1.7-1: BASIC SERVICES: improved facilities, which are

usable, separated for patients and staff, separated for women, provide menstrual hygiene facilities, and meet the needs of people with limited mobility

1.7-2: LIMITED SERVICE: improved facilities are present but are not usable or do not meet the needs of specific groups (staff, women, people with limited mobility)

1.7-3: UNIMPROVED SERVICE: unimproved sanitation facilities

1.7-3: NO SERVICE: No toilets or latrines

Hygiene facilities hygiene ladder: 1.7-4: BASIC SERVICE: Handwashing facilities with

water and soap at points of care and toilets 1.7-5: LIMITED SERVICE: Handwashing facilities with

water and soap at points of care or toilets, but not both

1.7-6: UNIMPROVED SERVICE: Handwashing facilities without water and soap

1.7-6: NO SERVICE: No handwashing facilities


Community levelInstitutional service level monitoring (structured interviews combined with direct observations)


63


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SIO 1.8: % of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels)

Households with access to an ‘improved’ sanitation facility (JMP definition) living in communities that achieved 100% Open Defecation Free (by GSF definition)

This is a critical indicator for long-term success and overtime provides evidence whether the interventions have resulted in sustained behaviour change. This indicator refers to the proportion of the total number of communities identified in indicator 1.1b.

The same indicator definitions and sanitation ladder as elaborated for indicator SIO 1.3 are to be used for this indicator.

M 12M






SIO 1.9: % of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level)

Households with access to a hand washing facility with water and soap on premises living in communities that achieved 100% Open Defecation Free (by GSF definition)

This is a critical indicator for long-term success and overtime provides evidence whether the interventions have resulted in sustained behaviour change. This indicator refers to the proportion of the total number of communities identified in indicator 1.1b.

The same indicator definitions and hygiene ladder as elaborated for indicator SIO 1.4 are to be used for this indicator.

M 12M






SIO 1.10: % of people (women, people with disabilities and people over 65 years) indicating satisfaction with their sanitation facilities

Total number of people (in # and %) segregated by gender, age, and disabilities living in 100% Open Defecation Free communities (by GSF definition)

Satisfaction is defined using a composite indicator that includes factors such as accessibility, cleanliness, privacy and security. Disability is referring to persons with limited mobility.

This indicator is measured through two yearly Outcome Surveys

OS 24M

Various depending on

national context and scope of

outcome survey

Community level Outcome surveys

SIO 1.11: % of population reporting strong social norms favouring latrine use

This indicator means that it is not acceptable that people continue to defecate in the open

Latrine use as a social norm means that it is not acceptable that people in the community continue to defecate in the open.

This indicator is measured through two yearly Outcome Surveys

OS 24M

Various depending on

national context and scope of

outcome survey

Community level Outcome surveys


Table 4.5: Additional information on the output indicators for intermediate outcome S.1

64

0utputs indicators Definitions Additional explanations

Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SOP 1.1: # of targeted communities in which collective sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions (such as CLTS) are implemented

GSF targeted communities with GSF supported sanitation and hygiene interventions


M 6M Rural/(peri) urbanCommunity levelSelf-reporting by implementing partners


SOP 1.2: # of public schools in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented

Public schools in GSF targeted communities with GSF supported sanitation and hygiene interventions

Public schools refer to state schools funded and operated by the government. These are all the primary and secondary schools located in GSF targeted communities in which the GSF programme is implemented.



SOP 1.3: # of students (boys/girls) attending public schools in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented

Total number of students attending public schools in GSF targeted communities

Public schools refer to state schools funded and operated by the government. These are all the students (or pupils) attending all the targeted primary and secondary schools in which the GSF programme is implemented.

M 12M

Rural/(peri) urbanTypes of public

schoolsGirls/boys students

Community levelStructured interviews with headmasters


SOP 1.4: # of health facilities in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented

Public health facilities in GSF targeted communities with GSF supported sanitation and hygiene interventions

Public health facilities refer to any location where healthcare is provided and which is funded and operated by the government. Health facilities range from community health posts, mother and child health care facilities, small clinics to urgent care centres and larger hospitals. These are all the public health facilities located in GSF targeted communities in which the GSF programme is implemented.



SOP 1.5: # of targeted communities supported through the programme that are implementing a post-ODF action plan

Existence of documented community specific post-ODF strategies or action plans


This indicator is only relevant for those communities that have achieved ODF status.



65

1.5 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG target 6.2

This intermediate outcome measures the achievement with regards to developing and implementing strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG target 6.2. Intermediate outcome S.1 – which focuses on changing behaviours and norms and ending open defecation – is an essential stepping-stone for achieving SDG 6.2 in entire administrative areas. Moving beyond ODF and climbing the sanitation ladder towards SDG target 6.2 (depth of impact) requires the inclusion of a range of additional interventions. These interventions are captured in intermediate outcome S.2 which is measured with the help of seven intermediate outcome indicators as shown in Figure 4.8.

66



67

68


In Figure 4.9 the depth and breadth of impact matrix16 is shown which will be guiding the GSF programmes in the different countries. The figure – showing the different scales of interventions (breadth) against the main rungs of the sanitation ladder (depth) – helps to illustrate how, over time, GSF’s focus will shift from supporting communities and administrative areas to reach and sustain ODF to supporting entire countries to achieve SDG 6.2.

Figure 4.9: Depth and breadth of impact matrix


Table 4.6: Results framework for intermediate outcome S.2Intermediate outcome S.2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG 6.2Intermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

SIO 2.1: # of people with access to safely managed sanitation services (JMP)

SOP 2A: Strategies and approaches that address safely managed sanitation are developed

SOP 2.1: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to undertake activities to address safely managed sanitation (M)

SIO 2.2: # of targeted communities with easy access to local supply chains for sanitation and hygiene products and services

SOP 2B: Increased uptake of appropriate and affordable sanitation and hygiene goods and services

SOP 2.2: # of implementing partners with supply chain strengthening strategies integrated into their work plans (M)

SIO 2.3: % of households adopting safe household water treatment and storage practices (OS)

SOP 2.3: # of targeted communities where the programme is supporting household level water hygiene promotion activities (O)

SIO 2.4: % of households that have constructed an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels) using their own financial resources (OS)

SOP 2.4: # of local sanitation and hygiene related entrepreneurs and artisans supported through the programme (M)

SIO 2.5: % of women and girls with access to SOP 2C: Menstrual hygiene SOP 2.5A: # of girls reached in schools with

16 This is only an example of a possible depth and breadth matrix. Actual details are likely to differ from country to country depending on local context and adopted sector strategies and or national roadmaps. In particular, the different rungs of the sanitation ladder (depth of impact) are to be aligned with national strategies and country goals and or targets.

69

Intermediate outcome S.2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG 6.2Intermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

MHM materials and adequate facilities while at home (OS)

management is integrated into programmes with particular focus on reaching girls in schools

menstrual health awareness messages (O)

SOP 2.5B: # of people trained on MHM programming (O)

SOP 2.5C: # of girls reached in schools with menstrual health awareness messages (O)

SIO 2.6: # of targeted administrative areas with FSM services including safe practices for emptying, transportation, treatment, disposal and or reuse

SOP 2D: Strategies and approaches are developed that address climate change adaptation and safely managed sanitation

SOP 2.6: # of implementing partners that are addressing safe management of faecal waste along the entire sanitation service chain in urban and or rural areas (O)

SIO 2.7: # of people living in areas prone to extreme weather events using locally appropriate climate resilient sanitation and hygiene facilities

SOP 2.7: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to undertake activities that address climate related risks and vulnerabilities (O)



70



Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SIO 2.1: # of people with access to safely managed sanitation services

Population using ‘improved’ sanitation facilities (SDG definition) which are not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or treated off site. ‐

The data or information required for this indicator is generated through intermediate outcome indicator 1.2. M 6M Rural/(peri) urban Household level

Service level monitoring IP monitoring reports

SIO 2.2: # of targeted communities with easy access to local supply chains for sanitation and hygiene products and services

Communities with access to local sanitation and hygiene supply chains and/or entrepreneurs that sell products and services necessary to install toilets and handwashing facilities, products and services necessary to operate, maintain, repair, improve those facilities, and services related to emptying, transportation, treatment, safe disposal and or reuse of faecal waste

Easy access will need to be defined in the country as this depends on local contexts. However, in general “easy” means that households should not spend more than one or two hours for a round trip to their local producers or suppliers. Where sales agents are moving around the villages accessibility should not be a problem.

Consider the following:

1) Acquisition of sanitary toilets: this requires customers to have access to the following goods and services: Sanitation related products:

Construction materials such as cement, bricks, toilet pans, syphons, sewer pipes and so forth: shops or retailers.

Pre-fabricated goods such as concrete rings, concrete slabs with or without toilet pans: concrete part producers.

Sanitation related services: Toilet construction services: contractors,

masons, etc.

2) Operation, use and maintenance of sanitary toilets: this requires customers to have access to the following goods and services: Sanitation related products:

Materials required to operate the toilet such as soap, cleaning materials, anal cleansing materials and so forth: shops or retailers.

Construction materials required to maintain or repair the toilets: shops or retailers.

Sanitation related services: Toilet maintenance and repair services: masons,

etc.

3) Disposal and or reuse of pit contents: this requires customers to have access to the following services: Sanitation related services:

Pit emptying services either mechanical provided by large and small entrepreneurs or manual services provided by sweepers.

Disposal and or reuse services provided by the same entrepreneurs involved in pit emptying


Household levelStructured interviews with households or community level focus group discussions Where possible include in service level monitoring


71


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

services or by other public or private service providers.

SIO 2.3: % of households adopting safe household water treatment and storage practices (OS)

Households with safe water treatment and storage practices

This indicator measures the number and percentage of households embracing recommended household level water treatment and storage practices. The main advantage of household water treatment and safe storage is that it can be adopted immediately in the homes to improve drinking water quality. It is proven to be an effective way to prevent disease from unsafe water.

This indicator is “optional” and is only to be reported on if household water treatment and safe storage interventions are part of the overall approach.

OS 24M Rural/(peri) urban Household level Outcome surveys


Population who funded themselves the construction of an improved sanitation facility

This indicator is measured through two yearly Outcome Surveys.

OS 24M Rural/(peri) urban

Household levelStructured interviews with households or community level focus group discussions

Outcome surveys

SIO 2.5 % of women and girls with access to MHM materials and adequate facilities while at home (OS)

Adequate MHM materials and facilities must be defined here

This indicator measures the number and percentage of women and girls who have access to appropriate menstrual hygiene management materials and facilities in the home. This indicator is only to be reported on if MHM interventions are part of the overall approach.

This indicator is measured through two yearly Outcome Surveys.

O 12M Rural/(peri) urban

Household levelStructured interviews with households or community level focus group discussions

Alternatively included in outcome surveys

SIO 2.6: # of targeted administrative areas with FSM services including safe practices for emptying, transportation, treatment, disposal and or reuse

Number of communities with appropriate and affordable public or private faecal sludge management services that are safe for the service providers as well as for the environment

This indicator is “optional” and is only to be reported on if faecal sludge management (FSM) related interventions are part of the overall approach.

O 12M Rural/(peri) urbanCommunity levelCommunity level focus group discussions


SIO 2.7: # of people living in This indicator needs to be made Extreme weather events refer to for example areas with O 12M Rural/(peri) urban Household level IP monitoring reports

72


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

areas prone to extreme weather events using locally appropriate climate resilient sanitation and hygiene facilities

specific by each country

risk of flooding, high water tables, droughts, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. where alternative sanitation and hygiene technologies may have to be introduced or where existing technologies will have to be adapted to cope with the specific events.

This indicator is “optional” and is only to be reported on if GSF targeted communities are affected by extreme weather events.

Structured interviews with households or community level focus group discussions



0utput indicators Definitions Additional explanations

Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SOP 2.1: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to undertake activities to address safely managed sanitation

Existence of documented implementation strategies and or approaches that go beyond ODF status and that support the achievement of SDG 6.2.

This specifically refers to implementing partners that have developed and implemented strategies and or approaches to move beyond the creation of ODF communities and that support the drive to work towards SDG target 6.2.

M 12M Rural/(peri) urban Implementing partnersSelf-reporting by implementing partners

Partners KM system

SOP 2.2: # of implementing partners with supply chain strengthening strategies integrated into their work plans

Existence of documented supply chain strengthening or sanitation marketing strategies or specific activities integrated in their work plans

Supply chain strengthening strategies refer to strategies or a plan of action that strengthen existing local sanitation related supply chains or sanitation entrepreneurs and or businesses.

M 12M Rural/(peri) urbanImplementing partnerSelf-reporting by implementing partners


SOP 2.3: # of local sanitation and hygiene related entrepreneurs and artisans supported through the programme

Local entrepreneurs and artisans refer to individuals who have set up and who are running a business that produces and or sells sanitation related products or that offers sanitation related services.

Disaggregated data is to be provided for the range of entrepreneurs (sanitation hardware producers, masons or artisans, hardware shops and retailers, sales agents, pit emptiers, other types of entrepreneurs).

M 12MRural/urban

Types of entrepreneurs

Implementing partnerSelf-reporting by implementing partners


73


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SOP 2.4: # of people trained on MHM programming

Total number of people (male and female) that have been reached with Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) messages or that participated in specific MHM interventions

O 12M Rural/(peri) urbanFemale/male

Community levelSelf-reporting by implementing partners


SOP 2.5A: # of people reached through the programme with MHM messages or interventions

Measures the total number of people (men and women) who have been reached by Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) messages or who have participated in specific interventions that integrate MHM at the community level.

O 12M Rural/(peri) urbanCommunity levelSelf-reporting by implementing partners



Measures the total number of people (men and women) trained directly through the GSF programme on Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM). Typically, this will include government counterparts and other partners and stakeholders at the targeted subnational administrative areas.




Measures the total number of girls that are attending schools which fall within GSF programme areas whom have been reached with menstrual hygiene awareness messages through programme interventions. Interventions may include targeted school campaigns/ education on MHM or awareness raising within the school clubs supported through the programme



SOP 2.6: # of implementing partners that are addressing safe management of faecal waste along the entire sanitation service chain in urban and or rural areas

Existence of documented strategies or implementation approaches that address the safe FSM practices and or services from emptying up to disposal and or reuse

O 12M Rural/(peri) urbanImplementing partnerSelf-reporting by implementing partners


74


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SOP 2.7: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to undertake activities that address climate related risks and vulnerabilities

This indicator needs to be made specific by each country O 12M Rural/(peri) urban

Implementing partnerSelf-reporting by implementing partners


75


1.6 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.3: Subnational political and financial commitment

This intermediate outcome measures the existence and extent of political and financial commitment at subnational level. One of the key assumptions of the GSF Theory of Change is that within the target administrative areas political leaders supported by local government institutions are willing and committed to lead the drive towards achieving the national goal related to SDG 6.2. The interventions will focus primarily on lobbying for an increase in public sector spending and developing a road map to achieve universal ODF and or SDG target 6.2. This intermediate outcome is measured with the help of four intermediate outcome indicators as shown in Figure 4.11.



76


Table 4.9: Results framework for intermediate outcome S.3 Intermediate outcome S.3: Subnational political and financial commitmentIntermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

SIO 3.1: # of subnational administrations where government leaders publically commit to initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2

SOP 3A: Lobby and advocacy activities geared towards subnational level political and public leaders carried out

SOP 3.1: # of subnational administrative areas where the programme has conducted lobby and advocacy activities focusing on government leadership and increased resource allocations/mobilisation

SIO 3.2: # of subnational administrative areas where resources for sanitation and hygiene interventions have increased

SIO 3.3: # of subnational administrations with a strategy (or roadmap) in place to achieve universal ODF and or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches

SOP 3B: Sub-national strategies for achieving ODF and or SDG target 6.2 are developed and endorsed by relevant stakeholders

SOP 3.2: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop a strategy (or road map) for achieving ODF and or SDG target 6.2

SIO 3.4: # of subnational administrations where the strategy (or roadmap) is properly costed (financing and human resource needs are known)


The outcome indicators for intermediate outcome S.3 are measured with the help of a simple checklist that is somewhat similar in nature to the composite scorecards used for the national level outcome indicators. Checklists comprising of a set of three questions are used to measure qualitative indicators that are otherwise difficult to capture in a quantitative manner. For each intermediate outcome indicator three questions (which are statements that underpin specific criteria) need to be answered. If all three questions are answered affirmatively than the indicator meets all three criteria and thus qualifies. An example is provided in the print screen below.

Print screen 4.1: Part of the checklist for intermediate outcome S.3

… ARE actively involved in the public discourse on sanitation

and hygiene

… DO stress the importance of sanitation and hygiene and

the need to improve sanitation and hygiene

conditions

… ARE actively involved in initiating or supporting

initiatives to realise 100% ODF status and or SDG 6.2

YES YES YES 100% 3 out of 3 Qs

… HAVE INCREASED compared to the previous

year

… ARE in line with the financial requirements

detailed in the strategy or roadmap

… ARE in line with official commitments as expressed in

approved annual budgets

YES NO NO 33% 1 out of 3 Qs

SIO 3.2Number of subnational administrative areas where resources for sanitation and hygiene interventions have increased

Resource allocations for sanitation and hygiene interventions…

Answer the following questions SCORESSCORES In # of

Questions

SIO 3.1Number of subnational administrations where government leaders publically commit to initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2

Subnational level political and public leaders…

No OUTCOME indicators

Data and information required to score these indicators will be discussed during meetings with the GSF Executing Agency, the WSSCC National Coordinator and members of the GSF Programme Coordination Mechanism (PCM). The checklists are to be completed during a meeting with representatives of the subnational administrations. This to obtain a good and fair insight as well as to build consensus and ownership on the results and way forward. The actual results of the discussions are to be backed up by evidence obtained from the subnational administrations and other sources.


77



Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SIO 3.1: # of subnational administrations where government leaders publically commit to initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2

Political and public leaders of subnational administrations that publicly speak out and commit themselves to improving sanitation and hygiene conditions in their jurisdiction

This indicator is similar to sub-indicator 1.1 of the national level composite outcome indicator N.1.1.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational level political and public leaders…1) … ARE actively involved in the public discourse on

sanitation and hygiene2) … DO stress the importance of sanitation and hygiene

and the need to improve sanitation and hygiene conditions

3) … ARE actively involved in initiating or supporting initiatives to realise 100% ODF status and or SDG 6.2

M 12M

Rural/(peri) urbanSubnational

administrations need to be

defined

Subnational levelInterviews with local authorities or as part of discussions within a local coordination mechanism with a broader selection of key stakeholders. Data is to be backed up by solid evidence

Minutes of meetingsActual evidence depends on subnational systems

SI 3.2: # of subnational administrative areas where resources for sanitation and hygiene interventions have increased

Actual resource allocations and resource depletion is in line with the requirements as stipulated in the strategies or road maps and these resources are increasing if so required

This indicator captures sub-indicators 2.2 to 2.4 of the national level composite outcome indicator N.1.1.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Resource allocations for sanitation and hygiene interventions…1) … HAVE INCREASED compared to the previous year2) … ARE in line with the financial requirements detailed

in the strategy or roadmap3) … ARE in line with official commitments as expressed

in approved annual budgets

M 12M


administrative areas need to be

defined



SIO 3.3: # of subnational administrations with a strategy (or roadmap) in place to achieve universal ODF and or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches

Strategies or road maps exist with concrete time-bound targets or mile stones to work towards universal ODF and or SDG 6.2


The checklist includes the following three questions: A subnational strategy or roadmap to achieve 100% ODF status or SDG target 6.2…1) … EXISTS2) … DOES promote the use of collective behaviour

change approaches3) … INCLUDES a clear time-bound vision for achieving

100% ODF status or SDG target 6.2

M 12M

Rural/(peri) urbanType of strategy

or road map (ODF or SDG 6.2)Subnational

administrations need to be

defined



SIO 3.4: # of subnational administrations where the strategy (or roadmap) is properly costed (financing and human resource needs

Strategies or road maps include transparent budgets which specify human and financial resource requirements


The checklist includes the following three questions: A subnational strategy or roadmap to achieve 100% ODF status or SDG target 6.2…

M 12M Rural/urban

Subnational levelInterviews with local authorities or as part of discussions within a local coordination mechanism


78


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

are known)

1) … INCLUDES clear and measurable (annual) targets2) … IS properly costed so that the human and financial

resource needs are known3) … IS available to all concerned sector stakeholders

working in the subnational administration's jurisdiction

with a broader selection of key stakeholders. Data is to be backed up by solid evidence



0utputs indicators Definitions Additional explanations

Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SOP 3.1: # of subnational administrative areas where the programme has conducted lobby and advocacy activities focusing on government leadership and increased resource allocations/mobilisation

The existence of a lobby and advocacy strategy focusing on policy and decision-makers and other influential actors with the right messages

M 12M Administrative areas

Administrative area Self-reporting by implementing partners


SOP 3.2: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop a strategy (or road map) for achieving ODF and or SDG target 6.2

Strategies or road maps need to have concrete time-bound targets or mile stones and include budgets with human and financial resource requirements necessary to work towards universal ODF and or SDG 6.2

M 12M

Administrative areas

Type of strategy or road map (ODF

or SDG 6.2)

Administrative area Self-reporting by implementing partners


79


1.7 Subnational level intermediate outcome S.4: Subnational coordination, learning, capacity and systems

This intermediate outcome measures the existence of coordination and learning bodies as well as a number of specific capacities and systems at subnational level. One of the key assumptions of the GSF Theory of Change is that capacity and system-building efforts will enable local authorities to lead and be actively involved in achieving and sustaining ODF status and to provide services further up the sanitation ladder. This intermediate outcome is measured with the help of eleven intermediate outcome indicators as shown in Figure 4.12.


80


The GSF results framework is presented in Annex 1; the outcome and output indicators for intermediate outcome S.4 can be summarised as shown in table 4.12.

Table 4.12: Results framework for intermediate outcome S.4Intermediate outcome S.4: Subnational coordination, learning, capacity and systemsIntermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

SIO 4.1: # of subnational administrations where a government-led coordinating body is in place, that convenes meetings with all key

SOP 4: Subnational administrations have been supported to establish and

SOP 4.1: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to convene multi-stakeholder coordination

81


Intermediate outcome S.4: Subnational coordination, learning, capacity and systemsIntermediate outcome indicators Outputs Output indicators

sector actors as needed, and that is used to develop and adjust plans and targets

strengthen systems and capacities to steer and monitor sanitation and hygiene interventions

meetings

SIO 4.2: # of subnational administrations that take the lead in organising sanitation and hygiene related learning initiatives among sector actors SOP 4.2: # of subnational administrations

supported through the programme to organise sanitation and hygiene related learning events

SIO 4.3: # of subnational administrative areas in which a growing number of stakeholders are applying proven collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

SIO 4.4: # of subnational administrations with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches

SOP 4.3: # of subnational actors trained and supported through the programme to implement and sustain sanitation and hygiene interventions

SIO 4.5: # of subnational level non-governmental key stakeholders (e.g. CBOs, NGOs, etc.) with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches

SIO 4.6: # of subnational administrations that have the capacity to provide post-ODF support to communities

SIO 4.7: # of subnational administrations where a functioning monitoring system is in place and applied to measure and report progress on sanitation and hygiene

SOP 4.4: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop and or apply a service level monitoring system

SIO 4.8: # of subnational administrations where sanitation and hygiene related monitoring data includes information on equality and non-discrimination (EQND) of all groups, including women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

SOP 4.5: # of subnational administrations trained and supported by the programme to integrate equality and non-discrimination (EQND) principles into their sanitation and hygiene programming

SIO 4.9: # of subnational administrations that have developed and or apply a nationally recognised ODF verification system

SOP 4.6: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop and or apply an ODF verification system

SIO 4.10: # of targeted communities with a functioning committee that supports lasting behaviour change SOP 4.7: # of targeted communities supported

through the programme to establish effective support systems for vulnerable households

SIO 4.11A: # of targeted communities with support systems in place that support vulnerable households to construct and maintain sanitation and hygiene facilities

SIO 4.11B: # of targeted communities with mechanisms in place to increase disposable incomes of households to invest in sanitation and hygiene facilities and services

SOP 4.8: # of community groups mobilised through the programme

SIO 4.12: # of natural leaders that are supporting initiatives in other communities to reach 100% ODF status

SOP 4.9: # of natural leaders engaged in GSF supported programmes


Similar to what was explained for intermediate outcome S.3, the outcome indicators for intermediate outcome S.4 are measured with the help of a simple checklist that is somewhat similar in nature to the composite scorecards used for the national level outcome indicators. Checklists comprising of a set of three questions are used to measure qualitative indicators that are otherwise difficult to capture in a quantitative manner. For

82


each intermediate outcome indicator three questions (which are statements that underpin specific criteria) need to be answered. If all three questions are answered affirmatively than the indicator meets all three criteria and thus qualifies. An example is provided in the print screen below.

Print screen 4.2: Part of the checklist for intermediate outcome S.4

GSF targeted subnational administrationsStrengthened sector coordination, collaboration and learning

… where a government-led coordination body IS in place

… that CONVENES meetings with all key sector actors as

needed (minimally two times per year)

… that use coordination meetings to discuss and

review plans

YES YES YES 100% 3 out of 3 Qs

… where learning events ARE organised at least once per

year

… where learning events ARE attended by all relevant

sector actors working in the area

… where learning events are used to share and discuss

monitoring results and other field-based evidence of GSF

supported and other programmes

YES NO NO 33% 1 out of 3 Qs

… other stakeholders are informed about or exposed

to collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

… other stakeholders are implementing collective

behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

… other stakeholders have the capacity (and resources)

to impement collective behaviour change approaches without the support from the

GSF programme

YES YES NO 67% 2 out of 3 Qs

SIO 4.3

Number of subnational administrative areas in which a growing number of stakeholders are applying proven collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

Subnational administrative areas in which…

SIO 4.2

Number of subnational administrations that take the lead in organising sanitation and hygiene related learning initiatives among sector actors

Subnational administration…

Answer the following questions SCORESSCORES In # of

Questions

SIO 4.1

Number of subnational administrations where a government-led coordinating body is in place, that convenes meetings with all key sector actors as needed, and that is used to develop and adjust plans and targets

Subnational administration…

No OUTCOME indicators

Data and information required to score these indicators will be discussed during meetings with the GSF Executing Agency, the WSSCC National Coordinator and members of the GSF Programme Coordination Mechanism (PCM). The checklists are to be completed during a meeting with representatives of the subnational administrations. This to obtain a good and fair insight as well as to build consensus and ownership on the results and way forward. The actual results of the discussions are to be backed up by evidence obtained from the subnational administrations and other sources.

The information for intermediate outcome indicators 4.10, 4.11A, 4.11B and 4.12 are to be obtained by the Implementing Partners directly in the GSF target communities. Ideally, this information can be obtained from the partners’ activity reporting or Management Information Systems.


83



Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

GSF targeted subnational administrations Strengthened sector coordination, collaboration and learning

SIO 4.1: # of subnational administrations where a government-led coordinating body is in place, that convenes meetings with all key sector actors as needed, and that is used to develop and adjust plans and targets

The coordinating body is used to obtain input from all relevant actors to develop and adjust plans and targets, and to align approaches within a clearly defined administrative area

This indicator is similar to sub-indicators 4.2 and 4.3 of the national level composite outcome indicator N.1.1.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administration…1) … where a government-led coordination body IS in

place2) … that CONVENES meetings with all key sector actors

as needed (minimally two times per year)3) … that use coordination meetings to discuss and

review plans

M 12M


administrations and subnational administrative

areas need to be defined


Minutes of coordination meetings

SIO 4.2: # of subnational administrations that take the lead in organising sanitation and hygiene related learning initiatives among sector actors

The focus here is on any initiatives that enable sector learning among key stakeholders.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administration…1) … where learning events ARE organised at least once

per year2) … where learning events ARE attended by all relevant

sector actors working in the area3) … where learning events are used to share and discuss

monitoring results and other field-based evidence of GSF supported and other programmes

M 12M





Minutes of meetings which include a learning

agenda

SIO 4.3: # of subnational administrative areas in which a growing number of stakeholders are applying proven collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

Harmonisation of approaches among development partners and the adoption of successful approaches is key to realising the country’s vision and accompanying targets


The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administrative areas in which…1) … other stakeholders are informed about or exposed

to collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

2) … other stakeholders are implementing collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene

3) … other stakeholders have the capacity (and resources) to implement collective behaviour change approaches without the support from the GSF programme

M 12M





Minutes of coordination meetings or other

meetings with a range of stakeholders

84


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

Strengthened capacities and systems

SIO 4.4: # of subnational administrations with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches

Local administrations with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches


The checklist includes the following three questions: Relevant staff of the subnational administration…1) … HAVE been trained and involved in planning,

implementing and monitoring collective behaviour change approaches

2) … HAVE the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches

3) … HAVE the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches without the support of GSF implementing partners

M 12M






SIO 4.5: # of subnational level non-governmental key stakeholders (e.g. CBOs, NGOs, etc.) with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches

Private sector and or civil society organisations with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches


The checklist includes the following three questions: Relevant staff of other non-governmental subnational key stakeholders…1) … HAVE been trained and involved in planning,

implementing and monitoring collective behaviour change approaches

2) … HAVE the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches

3) … HAVE the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches without the support of GSF implementing partners

M 12M





SIO 4.6: # of subnational administrations that have the capacity to provide post-ODF support to communities

Local administrations (departments) with the capacity to provide post-ODF follow up support to 100% ODF communities

This indicator is related to sub-indicator 3.1 of the national level composite outcome indicator N.1.1.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administration…1) … HAS adequate insight in the actual situation in the

different communities2) … HAS the capacity to provide post-ODF support to

communities declared 100% ODF3) … HAS put a system in place to provide oversight (on

the basis of continuous monitoring) to provide support to communities where slippage is occurring

M 12M






85


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

SIO 4.7: # of subnational administrations where a functioning monitoring system is in place and applied to measure and report progress on sanitation and hygiene

Ideally national service level monitoring system is developed and applied throughout the country

This indicator is similar to sub-indicator 3.2 of the national level composite outcome indicator N.1.1. Ideally, a national service level monitoring system is in place and applied throughout the country.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administration…1) … HAS a functioning monitoring system in place2) … APPLIES the monitoring system on a regular basis (at

least once per year) to measure progress3) … analyse and report the results of monitoring and

thus HAS adequate insight in progress made towards their sanitation and hygiene targets

M 12M





Minutes of meetingsMonitoring reports

Actual evidence depends on subnational systems

SIO 4.8: # of subnational administrations where sanitation and hygiene related monitoring data includes information on equality and non-discrimination (EQND) of all groups, including women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

Monitoring system is capable of measuring SDG 6.2

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administration…1) … HAS a functioning monitoring system that provides

information on equality and non-discrimination of all groups

2) … ENSURES that information on equality and non-discrimination is systematically collected during regular monitoring rounds

3) … analyse the equality and non-discrimination related information and thus HAS adequate insight in whether certain groups are lacking behind

M 12M






SIO 4.9: # of subnational administrations that have developed and or apply a nationally recognised ODF verification system

An ODF verification system is in place and applied by the subnational administration

There are basically two options: 1) There is a national ODF verification system that is

applied by the subnational administrationOR

2) In the absence of a national system the subnational administration has developed its own ODF verification system and is applying that

The checklist includes the following three questions: Subnational administration…1) … HAS a (nationally recognised) ODF verification

system in place2) … APPLIES the (nationally recognised) ODF verification

system consistently in all communities3) … ENSURES that the system applied results in

independently (externally) verified ODF communities

M 12M






86


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

that meet all the national ODF criteria

GSF targeted communities

SIO 4.10: # of targeted communities with a functioning committee that supports lasting behaviour change

Local community level WASH committees with the responsibility to ensure that ODF status is reached and thereafter sustained


The checklist includes the following three questions: Out of all the targeted communities, HOW MANY communities…1) … HAVE a committee that is actively engaged in

improving sanitation and hygiene conditions in the community

2) … HAVE developed action plans to achieve and sustain 100% ODF status

3) … HAVE formal or informal regulations to reinforce improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour



SIO 4.11A: # of targeted communities with support systems in place that support vulnerable households to construct and maintain sanitation and hygiene facilities

Locally appropriate support systems are in place and applied to ensure that vulnerable households will be able to construct, use and maintain sanitation and hygiene facilities

How many communities have special pro-poor or pro-vulnerable support mechanisms in place and are making sure that these groups are not left behind.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Out of all the targeted communities, HOW MANY communities…1) … HAVE identified vulnerable households that may

require some sort of support or assistance to change their sanitation and hygiene behaviour

2) … HAVE put in place a formal or informal support system to support the identified vulnerable households

3) … HAVE fairly applied the support system so that no household in the community is lacking behind



SIO 4.11B: # of targeted communities with mechanisms in place to increase disposable incomes of households to invest in sanitation and hygiene facilities and services

The checklist includes the following three questions: Out of all the targeted communities, HOW MANY communities…1) … HAVE a mechanism in place to increase disposable

incomes of vulnerable households2) … ARE undertaking or supporting activities to increase

disposable incomes of vulnerable households3) … HAVE been successful in increasing disposable



87


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation


Data source

incomes of vulnerable households

SIO 4.12: # of natural leaders that are supporting initiatives in other communities to reach 100% ODF status

Replication of the GSF approach in other communities resulting in actual achievement of ODF communities

Replication of the GSF supported approach by others is key to accelerate progress towards universal access to improved sanitation and hygiene. In the true sense of a strong movement initiated or triggered by the GSF programme it is expected or hoped that natural leaders who are/were involved and gained experience in the GSF programme replicate the GSF approach in other (non-target) communities.

The checklist includes the following three questions: Out of all the natural leaders, HOW MANY natural leaders…1) … ARE still actively involved in sustaining the ODF

status of their own communities2) … ARE supporting initiatives in other communities to

achieve ODF status3) … HAVE been instrumental in delivering ODF

communities outside their own communities


Subnational levelInterviews with local authorities, other sector actors and of course natural leaders



88



Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation

Level and method of

assessmentData source

SOP 4.1: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to convene multi-stakeholder coordination meetings

Number and percentage of subnational administrations supported through the programme to initiate and organise multi-stakeholder coordination meetings

These are all the subnational administrations that have been supported by the through the programme to initiate and organise multi-stakeholder coordination meetings.

Capacity and system building support can be provided in different ways, for example: Supporting the mapping of all relevant stakeholders Supporting the convening or organisation of

coordination meetings Supporting the drawing up of agendas Supporting the writing of minutes Co-chairing the meeting Other support activities

M 12M Rural/(peri) urbanSubnational levelSelf-reporting by implementing partners


SOP 4.2: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to organise sanitation and hygiene related learning events

Number and percentage of subnational administrations initiating and organising learning events

These are all the subnational administrations that have been supported through the programme to initiate and organise learning events.

Capacity and system building support activities can be similar to what is described above for indicator 4.1.



SOP 4.3: # of subnational actors trained and supported through the programme to implement and sustain sanitation and hygiene interventions

Number of subnational actors trained and supported through the programme

Subnational actors include but are not limited to local political leaders, local government staff, staff of civil society organisations and local NGOs, private sector staff and so on.

Possible capacity building support activities can include: Roadshows to introduce the programme Planning workshops Training of trainers Other training events On-the-job training Coaching and mentoring Other training activities

M 12M

Rural/(peri) urbanTypes of actors (government,

non-government, private sector)

Subnational levelSelf-reporting by implementing partners


89


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation

Level and method of


SOP 4.4: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop and or apply a service level monitoring system

Number of subnational administrations supported to develop and apply (service level) monitoring systems

In the ideal situation, a national service level monitoring system is already developed and applied throughout the country. If that is the case implementing partners could train and support local government staff to use the national system and to interpret and report the results.

In those cases where there is NO national monitoring system implementing partners should support the development of locally owned service level monitoring systems.



SOP 4.5: # of subnational administrations trained and supported by the programme to integrate equality and non-discrimination (EQND) principles into their sanitation and hygiene programming

Number of subnational administrations trained and supported by implementing partners

GSF programmes are expected to focus on disadvantaged groups to ensure that these groups benefit positively from GSF-supported programmes.

What is done by the subnational administrations to make sure that Equity and Non-Discrimination aspects are integrated in all the implementation stages by the subnational administrations? Capacity building support activities could be similar to what is described for indicator 4.3.



SOP 4.6: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop and or apply an ODF verification system

Number subnational administrations supporting the development and application of ODF verification systems

In the ideal situation, a national ODF verification (and certification) system is already developed and applied throughout the country. If that is the case implementing partners could train and support local government staff to use the national system.

In those cases where there is no national ODF verification system implementing partners should support the development of locally owned ODF verification and certification system. The GSF definition of ODF should then be used as a stepping-stone to develop a local system.



90


Man

dato

ry /

Repo

rtin

g

Disaggregation

Level and method of


SOP 4.7: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to establish effective support systems for vulnerable households

Number of communities supporting the development and application of support systems that will help the most vulnerable to have access to improved sanitation and hygiene facilities

GSF programmes are expected to focus on disadvantaged groups to ensure that these groups benefit positively from GSF-supported programmes. This is also very much in line with SDG target 6.2.

Although situations are expected to differ among the GSF countries it can be safely assumed that vulnerable groups (for example poor households, female-headed households, the elderly, people with a disability, etc.) will require some kind of support to climb the sanitation ladder. If nothing is done to support these groups, they are likely to stay behind.

Outsiders cannot describe specific support systems or mechanisms but implementing partners could play a crucial role in facilitating discussions at community level to consider different options on how best to support vulnerable households.



SOP 4.8: # of community groups mobilised through the programme

Number of community groups that are involved in and possibly supported by the programme



SOP 4.9: # of natural leaders engaged in GSF supported programmes

Number of natural leaders that are involved in the programme M 12M Rural/(peri) urban

Female/maleSubnational level IP reporting IP monitoring reports

91


Annexes

92

Annex 1: GSF result framework

Outcomes / Intermediate Outcomes Outcome / Intermediate Outcome Indicators Outputs Output IndicatorsNational level indicators

N.1: National enabling environment for achieving SDG 6.2Substantial political commitment, increased resourcing, and strengthened coordination, capacity and systems for achieving sanitation and hygiene for all

N1.1: Substantial political commitment, increased resourcing, and strengthened capacity, systems, coordination and collaboration is in place for achieving sanitation and hygiene for all

This outcome is measured with the help of a composite indicator, which is a set of individual indicators compiled into a single score or index.

Four narrative output indicators directly related to activities carried out by GSF affiliated partners that give an indication of what the GSF supported programme has contributed to this outcome

N.2: Effective delivery mechanisms for achieving SDG 6.2Appropriate delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behaviours and services are applied to cover the range of contexts in the country

N2.1: Appropriate approaches and delivery mechanisms for sustained, universal sanitation and hygiene behavioural change at scale are applied to cover the range of contexts in the country

This outcome is measured with the help of a composite indicator, which is a set of individual indicators compiled into a single score or index.

Four narrative output indicators directly related to activities carried out by GSF affiliated partners that give an indication of what the GSF supported programme has contributed to this outcome

Outcomes / Intermediate Outcomes Outcome / Intermediate Outcome Indicators Outputs Output Indicators


SOC 1: SDG 6.2 in targeted administrative areasUniversal access to sustainable sanitation and hygiene facilities and behaviours (by SDG definition) in targeted administrative areas

SOC 1.1A: # of administrative areas that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems (M)

SOC 1.1B: # of communities that achieved SDG target 6.2 verified using national systems (M)

SOC 1.1C: # of people living in communities that achieved SDG target 6.2 (M)

SIO 1: Sustained ODF communitiesCommunities/population in targeted administrative areas have ended OD, use improved sanitation and have access to handwashing facilities

SIO 1.1A: # of targeted administrative areas that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (minimally GSF definition) (M)

SOP 1A: Behaviour change approaches are implemented in an increasing number of targeted administrative areas and communities

SOP 1.1: # of targeted communities in which collective sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions (such as CLTS) are implemented (M)

SIO 1.1B: # of targeted communities that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (minimally GSF definition) (M)

SIO 1.1C: # of people living in ODF environments following national criteria (minimally GSF definition) (M)

SIO 1.2A: # of targeted administrative areas that achieved 100% ODF status following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition) (M)

SIO 1.2B: # of targeted communities that achieved 100% ODF

93



status following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition) (M)

SIO 1.2C: # of people living in ODF environments following national criteria (if lower than GSF definition) (M)

SIO 1.3: # of people with access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels) (M)

SIO 1.4: # of people with access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level) (M)

SIO 1.5: # of public schools with improved sanitation facilities AND handwashing facilities with water and soap as a result of GSF advocacy efforts

SOP 1.2: # of public schools in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented (M)

SIO 1.6: # of students (boys/girls) attending public schools with improved sanitation facilities AND handwashing facilities with water and soap as a result of GSF advocacy (M)

SOP 1.3: # of students (boys/girls) attending public schools in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented (M)

SIO 1.7: # of public health facilities with improved sanitation facilities which are single-sex and usable AND handwashing facilities with water and soap (JMP: limited service levels (M)

SOP 1.4: # of health facilities in targeted communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented (M)

SIO 1.8: % of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels) (M)

SOP 1B: Post-ODF strategies are developed and implemented

SOP 1.5: # of targeted communities supported through the programme that are implementing a post-ODF action plan (M)

SIO 1.9: % of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level) (M)

SIO 1.10: % of people (women, people with disabilities and people over 65 years) indicating satisfaction with their sanitation facilities (OS)

SIO 1.11: % of population reporting strong social norms favouring latrine use (OS)

SIO 2: Strategies and approaches for reaching and sustaining SDG 6.2Strategies and approaches are being applied in GSF targeted administrative areas to contribute to the realisation of SDG 6.2

SIO 2.1: # of people with access to safely managed sanitation services (JMP) (M)

SOP 2A: Strategies and approaches that address safely managed sanitation are developed

SOP 2.1: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to undertake activities to address safely managed sanitation (M)

SIO 2.2: # of targeted communities with easy access to local supply chains for sanitation and hygiene products and services (M)

SOP 2B: Increased uptake of appropriate and affordable sanitation and hygiene goods

SOP 2.2: # of implementing partners with supply chain strengthening strategies integrated into their work plans (M)

SIO 2.3: % of households adopting safe household water SOP 2.3: # of targeted communities where the programme is

94



treatment and storage practices (OS)and services

supporting household level water hygiene promotion activities (O)


SOP 2.4: # of local sanitation and hygiene related entrepreneurs and artisans supported through the programme (M)

SIO 2.5 % of women and girls with access to MHM materials and adequate facilities while at home (OS)

SOP 2C Menstrual hygiene management is integrated into programmes with particular focus on reaching girls in schools

SOP 2.5A: # of people reached through the programme with MHM messages or interventions (O)



SIO 2.6: # of targeted administrative areas with FSM services including safe practices for emptying, transportation, treatment, disposal and or reuse (O)

SOP 2D Strategies and approaches are developed that address climate change adaptation and safely managed sanitation

SOP 2.6: # of implementing partners that are addressing safe management of faecal waste along the entire sanitation service chain in urban and or rural areas (O)

SIO 2.7: # of people living in areas prone to extreme weather events using locally appropriate climate resilient sanitation and hygiene facilities (O)

SOP 2.7: # of targeted communities supported through the programme to undertake activities that address climate related risks and vulnerabilities (O)

SIO 3: Subnational political and financial commitmentPolitical leadership in targeted administrative areas is visibly committed to achieving and sustaining SDG 6.2, including through allocation of financial and human resources

SIO 3.1: # of subnational administrations where government leaders publicly commit to initiatives to realise SDG target 6.2 (M)

SOP 3A: Lobby and advocacy activities geared towards subnational level political and public leaders are carried out

SOP 3.1: # of subnational administrative areas where the programme has conducted lobby and advocacy activities focusing on government leadership and increased resource allocations/mobilisation (M)

SIO 3.2: # of subnational administrative areas where resources for sanitation and hygiene interventions have increased (M)

SIO 3.3: # of subnational administrations with a strategy (or roadmap) in place to achieve universal ODF and or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches (M)

SOP 3B: Sub-national strategies for achieving ODF and or SDG target 6.2 are developed and endorsed by relevant stakeholders

SOP 3.2: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop a strategy (or road map) for achieving ODF and or SDG target 6.2 (M)SIO 3.4: # of subnational administrations where the strategy (or

roadmap) is properly costed (financing and human resource needs are known) (M)

SIO 4: Subnational coordination, learning, capacity and systemsCapacity and systems exist in targeted administrative areas (public, private and civil society) to lead, plan, implement, monitor, coordinate and sustain sanitation and hygiene interventions

SIO 4.1: # of subnational administrations where a government-led coordinating body is in place, that convenes meetings with all key sector actors as needed, and that is used to develop and adjust plans and targets (M)

SOP. 4: Subnational administrations have been supported to establish and strengthen systems and capacities to steer and monitor sanitation and hygiene interventions

SOP 4.1: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to convene multi-stakeholder coordination meetings (M)

SIO 4.2: # of subnational administrations that take the lead in organising sanitation and hygiene related learning initiatives among sector actors (M)

SOP 4.2: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to organise sanitation and hygiene related learning events (M)

SIO 4.3: # of subnational administrations where a growing number

95



of stakeholders are applying proven collective behaviour change approaches to sanitation and hygiene (M)

SIO 4.4: # of subnational administrations with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches (M)

SOP 4.3: # of subnational actors trained and supported through the programme to implement and sustain sanitation and hygiene interventions (M)

SIO 4.5: # of subnational level non-governmental key stakeholders (e.g. CBOs, NGOs, etc.) with the capacity to plan, implement and monitor collective behaviour change approaches (M)

SIO 4.6: # of subnational administrations that have the capacity to provide post-ODF support to communities (M)

SIO 4.7: # of subnational administrations where a functioning monitoring system is in place and applied to measure and report progress on sanitation and hygiene (M)

SOP 4.4: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop and or apply a service level monitoring system (M)

SIO 4.8: # of subnational administrations where sanitation and hygiene related monitoring data includes information on equality and non-discrimination (EQND) of all groups, including women and girls and those in vulnerable situations (M)

SOP 4.5: # of subnational administrations trained and supported by the programme to integrate equality and non-discrimination (EQND) principles into their sanitation and hygiene programming (M)

SIO 4.9: # of subnational administrations that have developed and or apply a nationally recognised ODF verification system (M)

SOP 4.6: # of subnational administrations supported through the programme to develop and or apply an ODF verification system (M)

SIO 4.10: # of targeted communities with a functioning committee that supports lasting behaviour change (M) SOP 4.7: # of targeted communities supported through the

programme to establish effective support systems for vulnerable households (M)

SIO 4.11A: # of targeted communities with support systems in place that support vulnerable households to construct and maintain sanitation and hygiene facilities (M)

SIO 4.11B: # of targeted communities with mechanisms in place to increase disposable incomes of households to invest in sanitation and hygiene facilities and services (O)

SOP 4.8: # of community groups mobilised through the programme (O)

SIO 4.12: # of natural leaders that are supporting initiatives in other communities to reach 100% ODF status (M)

SOP 4.9: # of natural leaders engaged in GSF supported programmes (M)

96

Annex 2: SDG target 6.2

Target 6.2: “By 2020, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situation”

JMP normative interpretation of SDG target for sanitation and hygiene

Target text Normative interpretationBy 2030, achieve access Implies facilities close to home that can be easily reached and used when needed

to adequate Implies a system that hygienically separates excreta from human contact as well as safe reuse/ treatment of excreta in situ, or safe transport and treatment off site

and equitable Implies progressive reduction and elimination of inequalities among population subgroups

sanitation The provision of facilities and services for safe management and disposal of human urine and faeces

and hygiene The conditions and practices that help maintain health and prevent spread of disease including handwashing, menstrual hygiene management and food hygiene

for all Suitable for use by men, women, girls and boys of all ages, including people with disabilities

and end open defecation Excreta of adults or children are: deposited (directly or after being covered by a layer of earth) in the bush, a field, a beach or any other open area; discharged directly into a drainage channel, river, sea or any other water body; or are wrapped in temporary material and discarded

paying special attention to the needs of women and girls

Implies reducing the burden of water collection and enabling women and girls to manage sanitation and hygiene needs with dignity. Special attention should be given to the needs of women and girls in high-use settings such as schools and workplaces, and high-risk settings such as health-care facilities and detention centres

and those in vulnerable situations

Implies paying attention to specific drinking water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) needs found in special cases including in refugee camps, detention centres, mass gatherings and pilgrimages

The global indicator selected by UN Member States for monitoring SDG target 6.2 is ‘Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services including a handwashing facility with soap and water’. Safely managed sanitation creates a new service norm and represents an additional ‘rung’ at the top of the JMP sanitation service ladder. “Safely managed sanitation” is defined as:

An improved sanitation facility Which is not shared with other households, and

Where excreta is safely disposed in situ, or

Where excreta is transported and treated off-site.

The global indicator also requires: The presence of a handwashing facility with soap and water at home.

97

Definition and rationale for global indicator 6.2.1

Global indicator 6.2.1 Definition and rationale Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a handwashing facility with soap and water

Definition: Population using an improved sanitation facility at the household level that is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed of in situ or treated off site, including a handwashing facility with soap and water in the household.

Improved sanitation facilities include flush or pour flush toilets to sewerage systems, septic tanks or pit latrines, improved pit latrines (pit latrines with a slab or ventilated pit latrines) and composting toilets. A handwashing facility is a device to contain, transport or regulate the flow of water to facilitate handwashing.

This indicator builds on the MDG indicator “proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility”, and also incorporates aspects of accessibility (at the household level), acceptability and safety (not shared with other households), to further address the normative criteria of the human right to water. To ensure public health beyond the household level, this indicator incorporates the safe management of faecal waste along the entire sanitation chain, from containment to final treatment and disposal, and thus serves as a multi-purpose indicator contributing to indicator 6.3.1 on wastewater treatment.

Handwashing with soap is widely agreed to be the top hygiene priority for improving health outcomes, and the presence of handwashing facilities with soap and water available is used as a proxy for handwashing behaviour. This indicator is included as a standard element in many household surveys, and is recorded by field team observation rather than self-reporting by survey respondents.

The sanitation and hygiene indicator can be disaggregated by service level: no services, basic services and safely managed services. The monitoring of access “for all” calls for further disaggregation of data to highlight inequalities across socioeconomic strata and geographic locations (urban/rural and subnational).

Source: UN-WATER (19 July 2016) Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Targets and global indicators. Available on: http://ihp-hwrp.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SDG-6-targets-and-global-indicators_2016-07-19.pdf

Information is also available on: https://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/SDG-6-2-1-Safely-Managed-Sanitation-Services-and-Hygiene.pdf

The new sanitation ladder17 The MDG indicator ‘use of an improved sanitation facility’ focused on hygienic separation of excreta from human contact. The indicator comprised four categories: improved, shared, unimproved and open defecation. The new SDG indicator ‘use of safely managed sanitation services, including a handwashing facility with soap and water’ comprises of five categories: safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved and no service.

The new SDG sanitation ladder (see figure below) extends the existing MDG indicator and includes this new SDG indicator and definition. The ladder will be used to track progress across countries at different stages of development. The key terms are explained below: Improved sanitation facilities: These include flush or pour flush toilets connected to a piped sewer

system, septic tank, or pit latrine; ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines; pit latrines with slab; and composting toilets.

Not shared with other households: The possible negative impacts of shared sanitation facilities have long been debated. The main concerns centre on human rights, safety and dignity, with health as an important but secondary issue. It is acknowledged that this is very much a contextual issue, and for the purposes of global monitoring WHO/UNICEF JMP will exclude shared facilities from basic and safely managed services.

17 This section comes from GEMI – Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation Related SDG Targets, Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.2.1, Version 1, 21 October 2016. Available on: https://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/user_upload/Draft_step-by-step_guide_to_safely_managed_sanitation.pdf

98

https://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/user_upload/Draft_step-by-step_guide_to_safely_managed_sanitation.pdf



http://ihp-hwrp.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SDG-6-targets-and-global-indicators_2016-07-19.pdf

Safely disposed in situ: When pit latrines and septic tanks are not emptied, the excreta may remain isolated from human contact and can be considered safely managed. For example, with the new SDG indicator, households that use twin pit latrines or safely abandon full pit latrines and dig new facilities, a common practice in rural areas, would be counted as using safely managed sanitation services.

Treated offsite: Not all excreta from toilet facilities conveyed in sewers (as wastewater) or emptied from pit latrines and septic tanks (as faecal sludge) reaches a treatment plant. For instance, a portion may leak from the sewer itself or, due to broken pumping installations, be discharged directly to the environment. Similarly, a portion of the faecal sludge emptied from containers may be discharged into open drains, to open ground or water bodies, rather than being transported to a treatment plant. And finally, even once the excreta reaches a treatment plant a portion may remain untreated, due to dysfunctional treatment equipment or inadequate treatment capacity, and be discharged to the environment. For the purposes of SDG monitoring, adequacy of treatment will be assessed through consideration of both the overall treatment effectiveness and end-use/disposal arrangements.

A handwashing facility with soap and water: A handwashing facility is a device to contain, transport or regulate the flow of water to facilitate handwashing. This indicator is a proxy of actual handwashing practice, which has been found to be more accurate than other proxies such as self-reports of handwashing practices.

Figure: Comparing the previous MDG sanitation ladder with the new SDG sanitation ladder

99

Annex 3: The JMP Sanitation and Hygiene Ladders18

Household Sanitation LadderService level DefinitionSafely managed services

Improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite

Basic services Improved facilities that are not shared with other households

Limited services Improved facilities that are shared between two or more households

Unimproved servicesUnimproved sanitation facilities that include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines or bucket latrines

Open defecationDisposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces, or with solid waste

Household Hygiene LadderService level DefinitionBasic services Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water

Limited services Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water

No facility No handwashing facility on premises

School Sanitation and Hygiene Ladders Service level Sanitation HygieneAdvanced services To be defined at the national level To be defined at the national level

Basic servicesImproved facilities, which are single-sex and usable at the school

Availability of handwashing facilities that have water and soap

Limited services

Presence of improved facilities (flush/pour flush toilets, pit latrine with slab, composting toilet), but which are not single-sex or not usable at time of survey

Availability of handwashing facilities with water, but no soap

No service

No toilets or latrines, or unimproved facilities (pitlatrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines, bucket latrines)

No handwashing facilities at the school orHandwashing facilities with no water

Health Facility Sanitation and Hygiene Ladders Service level Sanitation HygieneAdvanced services To be defined at the national level To be defined at the national level

Basic services

Improved facilities are usable, separated for patients and staff, separated for women, provide menstrual hygiene facilities, and meet the needs of people with limited mobility

Availability of hand hygiene materials, either a basin with water and soap or alcohol hand rub at points of care and toilets

Limited services

Improved sanitation facilities are present but are not usable or do not meet the needs of specific groups (staff, women, people with limited mobility)

Hand hygiene station at either points of care or toilets, but not both

No service Pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines, or no toilets or latrines at the facility

Hand hygiene stations are absent, or present but with no soap or water

18 https://washdata.org/monitoring

100

https://washdata.org/monitoring

Annex 4: Mapping the new GSF Results Framework to the Results Framework of the WSSCC 2017-2020 Strategic Plan

Indicator in the WSSCC Strategic

Plan

Indicator in the GSF Results

Framework

IndicatorWSSCC Targets

Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6)Higher Order Outcome - Primary

Higher Order Outcome 1

KPI 1 SIO 1.1C# of people living in ODF environments following national criteria

16 million

KPI 2SIO 1.4

# of people with access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level)

16 million

KPI 3 SIO 1.3# of people with access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels)

16 million

KPI 4 SIO 1.8% of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to an improved sanitation facility (JMP: limited, basic and safely managed sanitation service levels)

80%

KPI 5 SIO 1.9% of households in previously verified ODF communities that have access to a handwashing facility on premises with water and soap (JMP: basic hygiene service level)

80%

KPI 6 SIO 1.10 % of women living in ODF environments indicating satisfaction with their sanitation facilities

80%

KPI 7 SIO 2.4% of women and girls with access to MHM materials and adequate facilities while at home

75%

KPI 8 SIO 1.10% of elderly people (aged 65 and above) living in ODF environments indicating satisfaction with their sanitation facilities

80%

KPI 9 SIO 1.10% of persons with physical disabilities living in ODF environments indicating satisfaction with their sanitation facilities

80%

Health (SDG 3)Higher Order Outcome – Associated

Higher Order Outcome 1 KPI 10 SIO 1.7

# of public health facilities with improved sanitation facilities which are single-sex and usable AND handwashing facilities with water and soap (JMP: limited service levels)

5% over baseline

Education (SDG 4)Higher Order Outcomes - Associated


# of public schools with improved sanitation facilities which are single-sex and usable AND handwashing facilities with water and soap (JMP: basic service levels)

25% above baseline

Women's Empowerment (SDG 5)Higher Order Outcomes - Associated


% of women and girls with access to MHM materials and adequate facilities while at home

75%

Urbanisation (SDG 11)Higher Order Outcomes - Associated

Higher Order Outcome 5 KPI 18 SIO 1.1C

# of people living in (urban) ODF environments following national criteria

Climate Change (SDG 13)Higher Order Outcomes - Associated


# of people living in areas prone to extreme weather events using locally appropriate climate-resilient sanitation and hygiene facilities

Targets to be determined by end 2017

Everyone, everywhere has access to and uses safe sanitation and

hygieneStrategic Outcome 2

KPI 22N.2, Indicator

3.3

An increasing number of stakeholders are adopting and applying GSF supported delivery approaches beyond GSF supported areas

7 countries



Targets to be determined by end 2017

Local, national, regional and global KPI 24 SIO 3.3 # of subnational administrations with a strategy (or Targets to be

101

Indicator in the WSSCC Strategic

Plan

Indicator in the GSF Results

Framework

IndicatorWSSCC Targets

sanitation and hygiene policies and practices that prioritize women and

girls and persons living in vulnerable situations

Intermediate Outcome 1

roadmap) in place to achieve universal ODF and or SDG target 6.2, using collective behaviour change approaches

determined by end 2017

Adequate resources, capacities, coordination and accountability for inclusive and sustainable sanitation

and hygieneIntermediate Outcome 2

KPI 29 SIO 3.2# of countries where subnational administrations resources for sanitation and hygiene interventions have increased

4 countries

Effective delivery models that are replicated to scale up sanitation

and hygiene access, use and maintenance

Intermediate Outcome 3


4.1

# of countries where the national government actively seeks (external and domestic) investments to scale up successful (GSF supported) delivery mechanisms to new areas

13 countries

102

Documents

About these Guidelines - WSSCC · Web viewThe actual scoring of this composite indicator is carried out during a meeting as explained in Section 3.2. The information required for