1 / 26

Subnational Intermediate Outcome 1: Sustained ODF communities

Subnational Intermediate Outcome 1: Sustained ODF communities. GSF Results and Financial Monitoring Workshop. SIO.1: Sustained ODF communities. Communities/population in targeted administrative areas have ended OD , use improved sanitation and have access to handwashing facilities

vnowak
Download Presentation

Subnational Intermediate Outcome 1: Sustained ODF communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  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: SIO 1.1a: # of targeted administrative areas that achieve 100% ODF status verified using national systems SIO 1.1b: # of targeted communities that achieve 100% ODF status verified using national systems SIO 1.1c: # 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 No excreta visible in the open All households are using safe, 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 cover is suggested. 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. To what extent do national definitions currently conform to the GSF definition? Group work

  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 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: 1.2a: SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) a SAFELY MANAGED sanitation facility 1.2b: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) an IMPROVED sanitation facility 1.2c: LIMITED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) a SHARED sanitation facility of an otherwise acceptable type 1.2d: UNIMPROVED SERVICES: Number of people with access to (and use) an UNIMPROVED sanitation facilities 1.2e: NO SERVICES: Number of people without access to a sanitation facility and that practice OPEN DEFECATION

  12. SIO.1: Outcome Indicators 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 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: 1.3a: 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 1.3b: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap located within or immediately near toilets 1.3c: BASIC SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap within or immediately near the food preparation areas 1.3d: LIMITED SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility with water and soap located anywhere else in the house or yard 1.3e: NO SERVICES: Number of people with access to a handwashing facility BUT without water and or soap 1.3f: 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 SIO 1.4: # of public schools with adequate numbers of gender-separated 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: 1.4A-a and 1.4B-a: Number of public schools with ADEQUATE numbers of gender-separated IMPROVED sanitation facilities 1.4A-b and 1.4B-b: Number of public schools with INADEQUATE numbers of gender-separated IMPROVED sanitation facilities 1.4A-c and 1.4B-c: Number of public schools with ADEQATE numbers of gender-separated UNIMPROVED sanitation facilities 1.4A-d and 1.4B-d: Number of public schools WITHOUT sanitation facilities

  17. Institutional hygiene ladder: 1.4A-e and 1.4B-e: Number of public schools with ADEQUATE numbers of handwashing facilities with water and soap 1.4A-f and 1.4B-f: Number of public schools with INADEQUATE numbers of handwashing facilities with water and soap 1.4A-g and 1.4B-g: Number of public schools with handwashing facilities BUT without water and or soap 1.4A-h and 1.4B-h: Number of public schools WITHOUT handwashing facilities

  18. SIO.1: Outcome IndicatorsExtra-Household Settings 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 IndicatorsSustainability of Results SIO 1.6a: % of communities that have sustained ODF status since verification SIO 1.6b: % 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 1.1b (using same indicator definitions) that continue to have ODF status (by GSF definition).

  20. SIO.1: Outcome IndicatorsEquality and Non Discrimination 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 IndicatorsSocial Norms 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.1a: Behaviour change approaches are implemented in an increasing number of targeted administrative areas and communities

  23. SIO.1 Output Indicators SOP.1a: Behaviour change approaches are implemented in an increasing number of targeted administrative areas and communities SOP 1.1: # of GSF target communities in which collective sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions (such as CLTS) are implemented SOP 1.2: # of schools in GSF target communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented SOP 1.3: # of students (boys/girls) attending schools in GSF target communities in which sanitation and hygiene behaviour change interventions are implemented 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.1b: Post-ODF strategies are developed and implemented

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

More Related