A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities

1. A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings

2. CLP Objectives

6. Selection criteria

7. Core package of support • Productive asset (primarily cattle) • Stipends • Homestead raised on a plinth • WATSAN • Livelihoods training (asset maintenance, homestead gardening etc.) • Weekly social development meetings (18 months) • Health vouchers

14. Key differences between CLP-1 and CLP-2 • Broadly the same but with some differences: • Numbers and cohorts • Area • Phasing out some CLP-1 activities: education, health • Partnerships “crowding-in” (GO, NGO, private) • Building social capital at the community level • Piloting and scaling up success e.g. low cost sanitary latrines • Etc.

15. Plinth occupancy CPHHs still residing? Payments for right to reside? Water and sanitation Access to a CLP latrine and sanitary condition? Access to safe water? Improved hygiene practices? Livelihoods H’stead gardening; composting? Growing and diversifying assets? Maintenance of cattle? Human Development Improved knowledge, attitudes & practice Sustainability study objectives

16. Methodology • Sample unit: CLP-1 core participants • Factors influencing sustainability • Geography • Phase • 20 ‘domains’ • Combined ATP1&2 into ‘earlier’ and ATP3&4 into ‘later’ phases (10 domains) • Sample size 2,821 • December 2010/ January 2011 • Data collection outsourced • Mixed method approach

17. Plinth Occupancy • Over 90,000 households on a raised plinth • 74% still residing on raised plinth • Jamalpur: 87% • Bogra: 59% • Erosion, relocation (own choice) and eviction

18. Plinth Occupancy Proportion of CPHHs still residing on their raised plinth Base: All sampled CPHHs

19. Plinth Occupancy Reasons why CPHHs are not residing on their raised plinth Base: CPHHs no longer residing on raised plinth

20. Plinth Occupancy • Land claimant had at one time demanded cash payment: 26% (early) and 23% (later) cohorts (Sirajganj). • Demand for non cash payments minimal

21. Sanitation • 62,000 slab latrines installed • Sanitary latrine definition • 80% and 70% of earlier and later cohorts currently have access to a latrine (sanitary and unsanitary) • Open defecation is down. Around 6% of adult males and females compared to around 20% new recruits (cohort 2.2) • High proportions of CPHHs with access to a latrine but ‘unsanitary’

22. Sanitation % of CPHHs with access to a sanitary latrine at baseline and 'endline'

23. Sanitation Proportion of hhs with a latrine that has either a broken water seal and/ or plastic pan at time of survey (all households) Base: All respondents with a latrine

24. Water • CLP-1 provided tubewells and platforms • Currently, the main source of drinking water is from others’ TW (52% -56%) followed by own TW (44% - 40%) • Access to ‘safe water’ definition • From a TW on raised plinth • Platform • 10 minute round trip • (40 feet +)

25. Water Proportion of CPHHs with access to safe water at time of survey Base: All respondents

26. Water Reasons why households do not have access to safe water Base: Households without access to clean water

27. Hygiene • Evidence of soap/ ash in 72% of CPHHs compared to 33% for cohort 2.2 at baseline

28. Vegetable production and composting • High proportions cultivating pit crops (70-80%) • Low proportions cultivating bed crops (<10%) • Reasons: space/ shade/ perceived benefits

29. Sustaining and growing assets Proportion of households with assets (land/ cattle) at the time of the survey

30. Social development

31. Social development Proportion of households where female respondent has correct knowledge of SD issues Base: All respondents

32. Social development Proportion of households where joint decisions are made on various issues Base: All respondents

33. To summarise

34. Recommendations • Monitoring/ learning • Water seals (quality/ understanding importance of water seals) • Platforms • ‘Light’ follow up support in exited villages

35. Thank you!

36. Actual and predicted rates of erosion of CPHHs

37. Impact