Subnational Intermediate Outcome 1 Sustained ODF communities GSF

Subnational Intermediate Outcome 1: Sustained ODF communities GSF Results and Financial Monitoring Workshop 1

2

SIO. 1: Sustained ODF communities Communities/population in targeted administrative areas have ended OD, use improved sanitation and have access to handwashing facilities • This outcome measures the achievement of realising universal access to sustainable sanitation and hygiene facilities and behaviours (by SDG definition) in GSF targeted administrative areas. 3

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators This intermediate outcome is measured with three intermediate outcome indicators: v SIO 1. 1 a: # of targeted administrative areas that achieve 100% ODF status verified using national systems v SIO 1. 1 b: # of targeted communities that achieve 100% ODF status verified using national systems v SIO 1. 1 c: # of people living in ODF environments verified using national systems 4

Defining Open Defecation Free • There is no JMP/SDG definition of open defecation free communities • Countries (programmes) have developed there own national definitions that all vary in criteria and detail and some with different levels of “ODF”. • For a global programme this makes it very challenging to measure progress and part of GSFs role is to advocate for more sector harmonization of the ODF standards and definition as well as ODF verification systems • Within the new Results Framework GSF has instituted a minimum ODF standard to which all GSF-supported countries will need to adhere in their reporting. • Individual countries may still require additional criteria within their definitions of ODF. 5

GSF’s ODF Definition 1) No excreta visible in the open 2) All households are using safe, improved sanitation facilities that separate waste from human contact o 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 cover is suggested. 3) Presence of a handwashing facility with water and soap/ash near each toilet. 6

Reporting • By setting a minimum standard which may not be consistent with the national standard, GSF is in effect asking some country programmes to perform dual reporting – in particular those countries that do not at a minimum include these three criteria in their definition • The EA is responsible to ensure monitoring and reporting against the GSF criteria, in addition to reporting on the ODF numbers reported and confirmed through national verification systems if different from the GSF definition (i. e. if the criteria is less strict and does not include the 3 minimum standard criteria). 7

Group work To what extent do national definitions currently conform to the GSF definition? 8

Verified using National Systems Verified using national systems refers to the formal inspection process adopted whereby areas receive official recognition (and certification) of SDG status 9

Data disaggregation Data is to be disaggregated by the following: • Rural/urban (targeted communities) • Female/male • Disability (Physical disability) • Age (With focus on persons over 65 years old) • Other vulnerable groups defined by the programme 10

Data collection methods Different data collection methods will have to be applied depending on the indicators, for example: • Community level ODF verification • Service level monitoring • Household level interviews and direct observations For some indicators the following methods could be applied: • Self-reporting • Guided self-assessments • Outcome surveys 11

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators v SIO 1. 2: # of people with access to (and use) an improved sanitation facility Data to be collected for each rung of the modified JMP sanitation ladder: • 1. 2 a: SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) a SAFELY MANAGED sanitation facility • 1. 2 b: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) an IMPROVED sanitation facility • 1. 2 c: LIMITED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) a SHARED sanitation facility of an otherwise acceptable type • 1. 2 d: UNIMPROVED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) an UNIMPROVED sanitation facilities • 1. 2 e: NO SERVICES: Number of people without access to a sanitation facility and that practice OPEN DEFECATION 12

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators v SIO 1. 2: # of people with access to (and use) an improved sanitation facility Data to be collected for each rung of the modified JMP sanitation ladder 13

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators v SIO 1. 3: # of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap (or substitute) in or near the toilet Handwashing at critical times is measured with this proxy indicator. Proxy indicators are indirect measures or signs that approximates or represents a phenomenon or behaviour in the absence of a direct measure or sign Faecal-oral contamination route that can be blocked through hand washing with soap 14

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators SIO 1. 3 is measured with the use of the following hygiene ladder: • 1. 3 a: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap located within or immediately near toilets AND food preparation areas • 1. 3 b: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap located within or immediately near toilets • 1. 3 c: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap within or immediately near the food preparation areas • 1. 3 d: LIMITED SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap located anywhere else in the house or yard • 1. 3 e: NO SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility BUT without water and or soap • 1. 3 f: NO SERVICES: Number of people with NO access to a handwashing facility in or near the home 15

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators Extra-Household Settings v SIO 1. 4: # of public schools with adequate numbers of genderseparated improved sanitation facilities and handwashing facilities with water and soap (national standards) • Public schools refer to state schools funded and operated by the government. These are basically all the primary and secondary schools located in GSF target communities in which the GSF programme is implemented. • This indicator combines the institutional sanitation and hygiene ladders into one. For clarity sake data for the sanitation and hygiene ladders are to be provided separately. 16

The EA is expected to provide the following data, disaggregated by type of public school (primary and secondary schools): Institutional sanitation ladder: • 1. 4 A-a and 1. 4 B-a: Number of public schools with ADEQUATE numbers of gender-separated IMPROVED sanitation facilities • 1. 4 A-b and 1. 4 B-b: Number of public schools with INADEQUATE numbers of gender-separated IMPROVED sanitation facilities • 1. 4 A-c and 1. 4 B-c: Number of public schools with ADEQATE numbers of gender-separated UNIMPROVED sanitation facilities • 1. 4 A-d and 1. 4 B-d: Number of public schools WITHOUT sanitation facilities 17

Institutional hygiene ladder: • 1. 4 A-e and 1. 4 B-e: Number of public schools with ADEQUATE numbers of handwashing facilities with water and soap • 1. 4 A-f and 1. 4 B-f: Number of public schools with INADEQUATE numbers of handwashing facilities with water and soap • 1. 4 A-g and 1. 4 B-g: Number of public schools with handwashing facilities BUT without water and or soap • 1. 4 A-h and 1. 4 B-h: Number of public schools WITHOUT handwashing facilities 18

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators Extra-Household Settings v SIO 1. 5: # of public health centres with improved sanitation facilities and handwashing facilities with water and soap • 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 basically all the public health facilities located in GSF target communities in which the GSF programme is implemented. • This indicator is to be completed identically to indicator SIO 1. 4 for public schools. 19

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators Sustainability of Results v SIO 1. 6 a: % of communities that have sustained ODF status since verification v SIO 1. 6 b: % of people that continue to live in ODF environments since verification • These are critical indicators for monitoring the long-term success and overtime provides evidence whether the interventions have resulted in sustained behaviour change. • This indicators refers to the proportion of the total number of communities (and people living in these communities) identified in indicator 1. 1 b (using same indicator definitions) that continue to have ODF status (by GSF definition). 20

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators Equality and Non Discrimination v SIO 1. 7: % of women and girls, elderly, and people with disabilities living in ODF environments indicating satisfaction with their sanitation and hygiene facilities This indicator is to be measured through outcome surveys Satisfaction is defined using a composite indicator that includes criteria such as: • Accessibility • Cleanliness, • Privacy • Security (day and night) • The elderly population is referring to persons over 65 years of age. • Disability is referring to persons with limited mobility 21

SIO. 1: Outcome Indicators Social Norms v SIO 1. 8: % of households indicating positive social norms in their community with regards to sanitation behaviour This indicator is to be measured through outcome surveys • Positive social norm means that it is not acceptable that people living in the same community continue to defecate in the open 22

SIO. 1 Outputs SOP. 1 a: Behaviour change approaches are implemented in an increasing number of targeted administrative areas and communities 23

SIO. 1 Output Indicators SOP. 1 a: Behaviour change approaches are implemented in an increasing number of targeted administrative areas and communities v SOP 1. 1: # of GSF target communities in which collective sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions (such as CLTS) are implemented v SOP 1. 2: # of schools in GSF target communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented v SOP 1. 3: # of students (boys/girls) attending schools in GSF target communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented v SOP 1. 4: # of health facilities in GSF target communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented 24

SIO. 1 Outputs SOP. 1 b: Post-ODF strategies are developed and implemented 25

SIO. 1 Output Indicators SOP. 1 b: Post-ODF strategies are developed and implemented v SOP 1. 5: # of communities in which post-ODF strategies (or action plans) are implemented • Existence of documented community specific post-ODF strategies or action plans 26