WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM: WORKING PAPER 58554 Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information to Improve Rural Sanitation in East Java Nilanjana Mukherjee, Djoko Wartono, and Amin Robiarto December 2010 The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. By Nilanjana Mukherjee, Djoko Wartono, and Amin Robiarto Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation is a WSP project focused on learning how to combine the approaches of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS), behavior change communication, and sanitation marketing to generate sanitation demand and strengthen the supply of sanitation products and services at scale, leading to improved health for people in rural areas. It is a large-scale effort to meet the basic sanitation needs of the rural poor who do not currently have access to safe and hygienic sanitation. The project is being implemented by local and national governments with technical support from WSP. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org/scalingupsanitation. This Working Paper is one in a series of knowledge products designed to showcase project findings, assessments, and lessons learned in the Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Project. This paper is conceived as a work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. For more information please email Nilanjana Mukherjee or Djoko Wartono at wsp@worldbank.org or visit www.wsp.org. WSP is a multi-donor partnership created in 1978 and administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. WSP's donors include Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the World Bank. WSP reports are published to communicate the results of WSP's work to the development community. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to wsp@worldbank.org. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org. © 2011 Water and Sanitation Program Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information to Improve Rural Sanitation in East Java Nilanjana Mukherjee, Djoko Wartono, and Amin Robiarto December 2010 Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................... 1 II. Collecting Information to Trigger Community-Wide Behavior Change ....................................................................... 4 III. Capturing and Sharing Information to Monitor Progress ........ 7 Community Level...................................................................... 7 Sub-District and District Levels ................................................. 7 District and Provincial Levels .................................................... 7 IV. Collecting Information to Verify ODF Achievement ............... 10 V. Celebrating Achievement of ODF Status ............................... 12 VI. Improving Data Collection and Reporting .............................. 13 VII. Summary of Key Learning ....................................................... 17 VIII. Next Steps ............................................................................... 19 Figures 1: Sequential Flow of Monitoring Information from Community to Provincial Level ............................................... 3 2: Social Mapping ...................................................................... 5 3: Sample Data Analysis from Monthly Progress Reports ................................................................... 8 4: Monitoring Improved Sanitation: "WC ku sehat" ..................... 9 5: Ceremony to Declare a Village Has Achieved ODF Status ............................................................................. 12 6: Frequency of Monitoring Reports ......................................... 13 7: Data Collection System Using Computer-Based Gateway and SMS Messaging ............................................. 14 8: Benchmarking Performance in East Java .............................. 16 Boxes 1: CLTS and Participatory Analysis Tools .................................... 4 2: Household Level Parameters for ODF Verification................. 10 Appendices 1: Sample Monthly Progress Report .......................................... 21 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village .................... 22 www.wsp.org v I. Introduction Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation is a Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) Findings project currently being implemented in India, Indonesia, and Tanzania. Working · Measuring and monitoring out- with local governments and the private sector in 29 districts of East Java province comes by all levels of stakehold- ers is the key to achieving goals. in Indonesia, WSP's approach combines generating demand from local govern- · Participatory mapping makes ments prior to initiating project interventions and demand from consumers for monitoring fully public and improved sanitation facilities and behaviors prior to making a greater range of transparent, and catalyzes com- sanitation products and services available through local markets. This demand- munity action for time-bound responsive approach combines Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS), behav- collective behavior change. ior change communication, and sanitation marketing approaches to help villages · Using participatory monitoring, become open defecation free (ODF). communities are able to gener- ate high-quality monitoring data At the end of the third year of project implementation, household access to sani- aligned with Joint Monitoring Program indicators. tation is growing at rates hitherto never seen in rural sanitation projects in Indo- · Local governments need not nesia. On average, one-third of all triggered communities have become ODF conduct community-level moni- within a year. However, across districts, varying levels of progress have been toring activities. Government achieved depending on the extent of political support garnered, implementation databases can be updated by capacity developed, and the cost-effectiveness of interventions undertaken. consolidating community-level data on a periodic basis. Significantly, district local governments are participating with cost-sharing of · While communities may be fully funds, institutional facilities, and manpower deployment. Thus, for the first time, able to monitor their own prog- local government funding in East Java is being used solely for "software" activities ress, manual data transfer from communities to district data- such as generating demand for sanitation, enhancing local market supply of sani- bases can prove burdensome tation products and services, and building institutional capacity. when the program scales up. · Use of mobile phones to report As the project enters the final year of implementation, key questions to address progress into a district-level include how to safeguard momentum and how to ensure that local government computerized gateway has funding and institutional commitment to the project approach will be sustained. greatly improved data flow from Hard evidence may help. Program financiers at the district level need to see evi- the community- to district-levels. dence that the new approaches work and are cost-effective, yielding better results · Institutional incentives are nec- per Rupiah expended than previously used approaches. They also need to be able essary to achieve complete monitoring reports at regular to track progress and outcomes at the community level using easily verified, af- intervals. fordable but reliable methods. · External, third-party, evaluation- based incentives may be more WSP's experience with participatory monitoring in East Java has shown that effective than internal ones. communities are fully able and highly motivated to monitor progress toward ODF and that they can regularly track changes in community access to improved sanitation. The data generated by initial social mapping activities and ongoing map updates also fulfills requirements set forth in the WHO & UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) to track progress toward achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for sanitation. www.wsp.org 1 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Introduction However, during 2009 the project team observed that while · Link community-based participatory monitoring monitoring data was being generated regularly in the com- with a district-level database; munities, much of this data was not reaching sub-district, · Segregate monitoring data into improved and un- district, or higher levels for regular consolidation. With the improved sanitation as defined by the JMP, enabling number of triggered communities running into the thou- tracking of district progress towards the sanitation sands in East Java, it had become too labor and time inten- MDG; and sive for government outreach staff to collect data manually · Add welfare-classified household sanitation data to from each triggered community on a monthly basis. In re- track whether poor households are gaining access to sponse to this challenge, a community-based participatory improved sanitation. outcome monitoring system was developed. This Working Paper documents how this system works and With a focus on implementing sustainable approaches, shares insights based on implementation to date. Figure 1 WSP focused on integrating innovations with existing on the following page provides a schematic view of the steps monitoring mechanisms used by local governments. In East described, noting the level, actors, actions, and data associ- Java, innovations were developed to: ated with each step. 2 Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Level www.wsp.org Community Sub-District District Province Key Personnel Community Puskesmas Sanitarian District District Provincial CLTS Facilitators Sanitation Staff/Team Health Office Health Office Health Office Committee Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information CLTS triggering Monitor Collect monthly Provide monthly Consolidate data Analyze data to Conduct annual Introduction This community updates SMS from computer facilitate forward cross-district process progress from triggered gateway planning and stakeholders can Action Taken communities Report ODF budgeting in reviews and extend Request ODF declaration Provide feedback district comparative further to verification Provide feedback events to Sanitarian analysis the to community Report data to national Puskesmas JPIP* level to Verify ODF claims reports of ODF analyze declarations progress across provinces. LB-1 form, Monthly updates, Conduct annual Monthly reports, cross-district Data Generated Baseline social map, Updated social completed collected to track collected to track benchmarking of indicating sanitation map, indicating using data collected sanitation access in sanitation access Annual sanitation program access in community changes in from multiple social triggered in district report** performance at time of CLTS sanitation access maps communities triggering over time ODF communities in Annual JPIP ODF verification Newly declared district evaluation checklists ODF communities *JPIP = Jawa Pos Institut Pro-Otonomi, an independent evaluator of district performance. JPIP uses the data to determine the recipient of a coveted annual provincial sanitation award. FIGURE 1: SEQUENTIAL FLOW OF MONITORING INFORMATION FROM COMMUNITY TO PROVINCIAL LEVEL ** Annual reports are sent to the Bupati (Head of District Administration) and DPRD (District Legislative Council) 3 II. Collecting Information KEY POINTS · Participatory mapping makes monitoring fully public and to Trigger Community- transparent, and catalyzes community action for time- bound collective behavior change. Wide Behavior Change · Using participatory monitoring, communities are able to generate high-quality monitoring data aligned with Joint Monitoring Program indicators. · Establishing fully public and transparent monitoring catalyzes community action for time-bound collective change. During an intervention, trained facilitators use the Com- After triggering, the community begins to plan how they munity-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach to collect will stop open defecation in their village. The information information that can trigger collective shame and revul- recorded during the social mapping activity is transferred sion at the practice of open defecation and catalyze a from the large-scale ground map onto large sheets of paper. community to end the practice immediately. Information Next, the facilitator introduces a "Welfare Classification"1 collected through a variety of participatory analysis tools: exercise in which villagers classify households into socio- (1) provides a baseline and common reference point, economic categories and indicate if a household has access (2) can be used to help a community plan the steps they to improved or unimproved sanitation. will take to become open defecation free, and (3) can be used to monitor a community's progress toward this goal To increase understanding about different types of facilities (Box 1). and the difference between "improved" and "unimproved" BOX 1: CLTS AND PARTICIPATORY ANALYSIS TOOLS Calculation of daily feces--A calculation is made of the amount of feces added daily to the village Social mapping--In social mapping (see image), vil- environment. lagers create a large-scale map of their community on the ground, using locally available materials. This map is used to visualize the community's current sanita- tion behavior, which helps the villagers analyze exactly how the practice of open defecation threatens the health and well being of all community members. Transect walk--Villagers and facilitators complete a transect walk through the village to spot and record places of open defecation. Data collected on the tran- sect walk is used to trace the routes through which fecal contamination is transmitted from open defeca- tion sites to household and community living areas. 1 A Methodology of Participatory Assessment (MPA) tool that uses communities' own criteria to group households into different welfare categories using culturally acceptable labels such as Upper Class/Rich/Able, Lower Class/Poor/Less Able, and In-Between/Middle Class, etc. (See WSP-World Bank-IRC 2003) 4 Global Scaling Up Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Collecting Information to Trigger Community-Wide Behavior Change FIGURE 2: SOCIAL MAPPING This social map of Dusun Juwet was created following triggering and updated periodically to track behavior change and access to sanitation. At the time this photo was taken, Dusun Juwet was close to becoming open defecation free, with just three households continuing to practice open defecation. These households became open defecation free in March 2010, four months after triggering. Enlargements show sections of the map in greater detail. Key Wealthy income household Poor income household Average income household Household with improved, permanent sanitation facility Household with improved, semi-permanent sanitation facility · Household with unimproved sanitation facilities X Household shares other household's sanitation facilities (date indicates when household acquired own latrine) ----- Household of open defecators and path to defecation site www.wsp.org 5 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Collecting Information to Trigger Community-Wide Behavior Change latrines, the project translated the JMP criteria for improved facilities, either improved or unimproved sanitation, sanitation into descriptions that could be easily explained and where open-defecation practices are occurring using local language and terms (Appendix 2). The informa- within the community; tion is recorded on the map using symbols and a map legend. · Provide a visual reference that is understood and ac- Most communities go even further and mark households cessible to the entire community; and that share facilities. The legend helps clarify, at a glance, · Record progress towards ODF achievement and en- which category of household has what kind of sanitation ac- able its verification. cess and defecation practice during a given month (Figure 2). Once the social map is completed it is displayed in a public Social maps are used to: place where all villagers can see and refer to it. The village · Record baseline data such as the location of house- sanitation/CLTS committee updates the map every month holds, the socio-economic welfare category of these to include households that build latrines or upgrade their households, if households have access to sanitation sanitation facilities. 6 Global Scaling Up Sanitation III. Capturing and KEY POINTS · Measurement and monitoring outcomes by all levels of Sharing Information stakeholders is the key to achieving goals. · At the village or community level, monitoring data is to Monitor Progress used to self-evaluate progress toward achieving ODF status. · At the sub-district and district levels, monitoring data is used to report progress and communicate cost effectiveness. · At the provincial level, monitoring data is consolidated into benchmarking indicators to allow comparison across districts. · Across districts and at the sectoral level, monitoring and benchmarking data summaries are used to share learning. Community Level as a Bupati), the provincial health office, and WSP, with as- At the community or village level, local health center staff sistance from a resource agency recruited by WSP to help such as a sanitarian or village midwife visit the village to col- build district government capacity. lect data from the social map and cross-check reported prog- ress with field observations. Form LB-1 (Appendix 1, Sample At both sub-district and district levels, local government Monthly Progress Report) is used to record baseline data and program staff and managers use monitoring data to report monthly updates for each village. Data captured in this form progress to the Head of Health Office, the Head of Regency is used to generate graphics and is consolidated into sum- and to district legislators. They have also begun to use the maries for either a single or multiple communities, as re- data to communicate the extent of cost-effectiveness of quired by district and provincial health offices, and submitted their budget investment for the community-level outcomes to district health offices on a monthly basis (Figure 3). achieved. This has led to a steady increase in local govern- ment's annual budget allocations for rural sanitation pro- At this level, natural leaders and sanitation/CLTS commit- grams during the years that the project has been implemented tees use monitoring data after CLTS triggering to evaluate in East Java. how far their community has progressed toward the goal of achieving ODF status, which households have gained ac- District and Provincial Levels cess and which have not, and whether the poor are gaining At the provincial level, monitoring data is consolidated into access. The project has introduced color-coding for house- benchmarking indicators to allow comparison across dis- holds of different welfare classes, thereby allowing commu- tricts while evaluating district-level sanitation program per- nity leaders and CLTS committees to identify households formance. Since 2009, the sanitation benchmarking that are lagging behind and take action to help them make indicators are included in an annual evaluation of district the desired change. governance for choosing the best-governed district for that year. This prestigious award is given by the Jawa Pos Institut In some communities, a colored sticker with a thumbs-up pro-Otonomi, a foundation of East Java's Java Post media sign and the slogan, "WC ku sehat" ("My latrine is im- network. proved") is used as an additional monitoring tool. This sticker is affixed to the front wall of each house with an Across districts and at the sectoral level, monitoring and improved facility (Figure 4). benchmarking data summaries are used extensively for sharing learning. Healthy, performance-based competition Sub-District and District Levels is generated through monitoring and benchmarking data At the district level, health offices compile the data and re- analysis at annual stakeholder learning reviews. These pop- port to the Regent (district administrative head, also known ular group learning events are attended by provincial and www.wsp.org 7 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Capturing and Sharing Information to Monitor Progress FIGURE 3: SAMPLE DATA ANALYSIS FROM MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS Sanitation Behavior Change One Month after Triggering in Dusun Nglawan-Village Senden 70 Number of Households 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R M P R M P R M P R M P Access to Access to Access to Still open improved latrine unimproved latrine shared latrine defecation (OD) Sanitation Behavior Key Baseline Progress R = Rich households M = Middle income households P = Poor households Progress in Phase Three Districts (September 2009 to April 2010) 140 120 Number of Communities 100 80 60 40 20 0 MALANG SIDOARJO MOJOKERTO MAGETAN BOJONEGORO LAMONGAN GRESIK SAMPANG Ongoing triggered 49 34 42 72 35 65 104 120 communities Number of ODF 12 20 92 95 8 5 33 15 communities 8 Global Scaling Up Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Capturing and Sharing Information to Monitor Progress FIGURE 4: MONITORING IMPROVED SANITATION: "WC KU SEHAT" In some communities, a colored sticker with a thumbs-up sign and the slogan, "WC ku sehat" ("My latrine is improved") is used as an additional monitoring tool. This sticker is affixed to the front wall of each house with an improved facility. The absence of a sticker indicates that the residents continue to practice open defecation or use shared latrines. Also, in some communities, households having an unimproved facility (e.g., an unhealthy, unhygienic latrine) are marked with a different colored sticker, which serves both as an embarrassing and persua- sive force encouraging owners to up- grade to improved facilities as soon as possible. district level officials representing Health, Public Works, variable, with community data being picked up every one, Education, Planning, and Community Development sec- two, or three months. In East Java, institutionalization of tors, which helps bring about greater cross-sectoral agree- the project's monitoring system has been influenced by the ments about the way forward for the province in terms of following realities: rural sanitation. · The program cannot compel communities to re- port progress of sanitation activities to the sub- Using this approach, data indicating changes in access to district or district levels. The project encourages improved sanitation and, in particular, progress for poor communities to monitor the process of behavior households within each community can be tracked. The change so that they can reach ODF status and the data is easily verifiable through the social maps and visual prestige associated with it. Creating and using social checks, and meets the monitoring requirements of the JMP. maps serves as a medium of verifying and communi- Communities are not required to send data to the district cating their progress transparently. health center on a periodic basis. Instead, they send data · All districts have health center outreach staff when they submit a claim that they have achieved ODF called sanitarians, functioning at sub-district and status, inviting local government verification. community levels for improving environmental health. The project has therefore cast the sanitar- A global Monitoring Information System (MIS) developed ian in a leading role for triggering and monitoring by WSP was implemented in East Java and other project sanitation behavior change, and for collecting, ana- countries. However, in East Java, local government pick-up lyzing, and reporting monitoring data to the district of community monitoring data on a monthly basis has been level. www.wsp.org 9 IV. Collecting Information KEY POINTS · Local government facilitators organize ODF verification to Verify ODF events. · ODF verification is made through the use of a checklist. Achievement · ODF verification results are immediately shared with the community, and, if needed, a time-frame for re-verification is set. Local government facilitators, mostly sanitarians or health district cadre, a villager from another hamlet/village, and center (puskesmas) staff, encourage communities to report members of other community development agencies. progress before declaring ODF status. The facilitators can use Form LB-1 reports as an "early warning " to identify On an appointed day, the ODF verification team arrives at communities that are close to achieving open defecation the community and is given a briefing on the exercise. As they free (ODF) status. For example, a community that is re- conduct the ODF verification, the team follows parameters to porting zero or close to zero open defecation and zero ensure a complete and objective verification (Box 2; also Ap- households using unimproved latrines may be close to pendix 2, Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village). achieving ODF status. The ODF verification team consults the social map in the When a community thinks that it is ODF, it notifies the village to determine the route each verifier will take in order local puskesmas staff. These requests are collected and, peri- to cover the community fully. Once all the household ob- odically, the staff will organize an ODF verification event servations and verifications are completed, the members of conducted by an ODF verification team. The verification the verification team return to a specified meeting place team should consist of health center staff, a sub-district/ where the community can also gather. BOX 2: HOUSEHOLD LEVEL PARAMETERS FOR ODF VERIFICATION On an appointed day, the ODF verification team ar- The parameters for ODF verification at the household rives at the community and is given a briefing on the level include: exercise. As they conduct the ODF verification, the team follows parameters to ensure a complete and 1. The latrine facility is being used and is in good objective verification. working order. 2. Babies' feces are disposed of into latrine facility. 3. The toilet slab is well/safely constructed. 4. The cesspit is located at least 10 meters away and downstream from water sources. 5. The latrine facility prevents access to pit contents by flies, other vectors, and animals. 6. No feces are visible on the floor/walls/pan of latrine. 7. Water and soap are available in or nearby the latrine for washing hands after defecation. 8. The latrine hole has a fully closing cover (dry pit) or water seal (pour flush). 9. A handwashing facility is available near the main eating area. 10. No human excreta, including children's feces, are found in the yard, garbage pit, or drains. 10 Global Scaling Up Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Collecting Information to Verify ODF Achievement Results are compiled and shared with the community. One In addition, during the ODF verification visit, the verifica- result could be that the community fulfills the criteria for tion team checks indicators of a community's commitment. ODF verification. Alternatively, the community may not be These include: the existence of village regulations/sanctions ready for ODF verification. The reasons why it may not be to check open defecation; the existence of a monitoring sys- declared ODF are reported to the community and agree- tem involving key community leaders; and functioning ments are reached as to when it will be ready for re-verifica- school sanitation facilities. tion. Usually communities ask verification teams to return within a week or two. www.wsp.org 11 V. KEY POINTS Celebrating · Following ODF verification, the Achievement of District Health Services submits a report to the Bupati. ODF Status · A celebration to recognize the verification of ODF status is held. · The celebration is a community- wide event and can include neighboring communities. After the ODF verification team confirms that a village has fulfilled the criteria for ODF verification, the District Health Services submits a report to the Bupati through the district sanitation coordination committee (chaired by District Plan- ning Board). Respected village elders invite the Bupati to attend an ODF celebra- tion. During this celebration, the Bupati recognizes and declares the community's new ODF status, felicitates them, and usually offers some form of reward such as assistance for other infrastructure needs such as a road, bridge, water supply, and so forth (Figure 5). FIGURE 5: CEREMONY TO DECLARE A VILLAGE HAS ACHIEVED ODF STATUS A Vice-Regent inaugurates an ODF declaration following ODF verification in Babadan village, Ngawi District. The attendance of a Regent or Vice-Regent serves to motivate and encourages neighboring villages to accelerate access to improved sanitation and achieve ODF status. 12 Global Scaling Up Sanitation VI. Improving Data KEY POINTS · Manual data transfer from community maps to local Collection and government databases becomes burdensome when programs scale up. Reporting · The use of emerging technologies such as SMS text messaging linked directly to a computer-based database may reduce manual data errors and improve the frequency monitoring and reporting. · Institutional incentives to motivate staff to conduct monitoring on a regular basis are a key requirement. The experience with participatory monitoring has shown possible due to the widespread ownership of mobile phones that communities are fully able and highly motivated to in rural areas of East Java (Figure 7). monitor progress towards ODF status and that they can regularly track changes in community access to improved The results of the pilot have been encouraging. By end of sanitation. The data generated by the initial social mapping March 2010, 22 puskesmas had sent baseline and progress activity and ongoing map updates also fulfills the require- data through SMS gateway, as compared to 13 puskesmas ments of JMP monitoring. However, with the number of prior to the implementation of the SMS-based monitoring triggered communities running into thousands in the prov- system. And using the SMS system, it was possible to reduce ince, it has become too intensive in terms of time and labor reporting errors that occur in manual collection and data needed from government outreach staff to collect data man- entry systems. There was also a positive impact on data veri- ually from each triggered community on a monthly basis. fication since records were stored in the sanitarians' mobile As shown in Figure 6, most community data updates reach phones. district databases only every three months. In order to adopt the SMS-based reporting system, a district During 2009, it was observed that even though monitoring must: (i) provide the hardware--a computer at the district data was being generated regularly in the communities, level and cell phones; (ii) build both commitment and a much of this data was not reaching sub-district, district, or functional reporting mechanism among the monitoring ac- higher levels for regular consolidation. tors (district, puskesmas, and cadre/community); and (iii) fund the operation cost for running SMS monitoring. To overcome bottlenecks, a data collection process using mobile phones, short message service (SMS), and a com- Three SMS messages are entered for each new community: puter-based gateway system was piloted in two districts one on the community profile (population etc.), one on where the project is being implemented, an approach made baseline sanitation data, and one on progress. Subsequently, the community leader or representative who reports progress to the sanitarian FIGURE 6: FREQUENCY OF MONITORING REPORTS sends one SMS each month. The sani- tarian forwards messages to the district 1 district gateway. After the pilot, Jombang Dis- Key trict Health Office started to provide 11 districts 1 month Rp.5,000 (US$0.60) worth of cell 13 districts 2 months phone pulses per month to sanitarians 3 months who registered their phone numbers in 4 districts the system, covering the cost of ap- >3 months proximately 20 SMS per month. This is a very small cost that all districts can bear easily. www.wsp.org 13 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Improving Data Collection and Reporting FIGURE 7: DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM USING COMPUTER-BASED GATEWAY AND SMS MESSAGING Community Data Baseline Data Progress Data Send Data SMS Gateway via SMS Management Information Database System (MIS) Cell Phone/SMS Report Identify Sender, Sanitarian Sending Time, SMS Coding Using this system, sanitarians attached to puskesmas are required to routinely collect data from the community level and upload the data via SMS, in real time, into a computer-based gateway system located at the district health office. The system automatically verifies newly reported progress against baseline and previous month's data, and generates reports--eliminating the need for manual data entry. Periodic, random checks are made at the community level and during ODF verification exer- cises to verify SMS-reported data. By October 2010, WSP had introduced and operational- sanitation facilities (improved or unimproved) that were ized the sytem in all 29 districts, with eleven districts pro- being acquired as access to sanitation increased. This has viding the necessary hardware. Districts reported that the added a desirable check in the process through local govern- system (1) is easier to operate than manual systems, ments' ODF verification exercises. But this also means that (2) improves regular data flow, (3) drastically reduces the only the access gains that are verified as "improved sanita- time needed to process data at each level, and (4) im- tion" can be reported. At any given point of time there is proves data quality in real time through automatic consis- always a backlog of communities that have declared them- tency checks. selves as ODF, but the local ODF verification system has not yet been able to cover them all. The extent of the back- At present the system only captures progress on household log can be substantial. For example the July­December access to improved sanitation. Plans are under way to ex- 2009 semi-annual MIS report for East Java states: tend it to tracking progress on sanitation marketing and hygiene behavior change. The national government has ini- During July­December 2009, 289,500 people were tiated discussions with WSP on expanding the system to reported to have moved from open defecation to using other provinces and developing a national sector monitor- sanitation facilities. Of these, 107,237 had been veri- ing system. fied as having acquired improved sanitation. 182,263 more people had also gained access to sanitation, but During the course of the project, a need emerged to verify their facilities had not yet been checked because they behavior changes reported by communities and the types of had not received ODF verification. 14 Global Scaling Up Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Improving Data Collection and Reporting Apart from making it easier to report data through mobile these outcomes, are used to evaluate sanitation perfor- phones, institutional incentives have emerged as a key re- mance. JPIP obtains sanitation benchmarking and moni- quirement to motivate staff to conduct monitoring on a toring data from district health offices, and supplements it regular basis. As yet no authority or mechanism requires the with independent observations and public opinion districts to update district ODF data regularly on a time- surveys. bound schedule. Based on the project experience to date, a national level In order to set up such a cross-district MIS reporting and re- monitoring system may be necessary to sustain the interest view system managed by the provincial government, WSP of East Java government institutions in this kind of moni- has planned an action research initiative in East Java during toring and ensure the routine capture of behavioral data the second half of 2010 to identify strategies to improve such as ODF achievement at the village level. In pursuit of ODF achievement rates in CLTS-triggered communities, this objective, WSP has conducted policy advocacy leading and using the findings, to recommend supportive actions to to the launch of a cutting edge national Community-Based district and provincial governments. The recommendations Total Sanitation (CBTS) Strategy, which has sparked inter- will include ways of creating an internal institutional demand est among other large scale programs in replicating ap- and incentives for regular reporting of ODF verification data proaches introduced through TSSM. The next challenge is from districts to the province (and then to the national) level, to establish national level systems and mechanisms to perhaps on a quarterly or six-monthly interval. strengthen local government's commitment to translate the CBTS strategy into concrete action. In Indonesia, the cen- Benchmarking Performance for Comparison tral government has expressed willingness to develop an Across Districts SMS-based monitoring system for all five pillars of the A mechanism to compare program performance objectively CBTS (elimination of OD, hand washing with soap, safe across districts on an annual basis has recently been imple- food handling, safe drinking water handling, safe disposal mented. This system is based on a performance benchmark- of domestic solid and liquid waste), but mechanisms and ing system introduced by WSP in India in conjunction capacity are not yet developed. The national government with the Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Project. In In- recognizes that capacity building for monitoring is essential donesia, the benchmarking system measures progress and must be an integral part of a national rural sanitation against eight key performance outcomes and progress capacity development plan. against additional indicators (Figure 8). A potential breakthrough has come in the form of an IN- Institutional incentives for more regular ODF verification PRES (Presidential Instruction) issued in 2010. Through may also be generated through external means. In East Java, the INPRES the President of Indonesia has asked all con- a powerful incentive is the link created in 2009 between the cerned Ministries to monitor progress towards the MDG district government's sanitation program performance and targets, including those for sanitation. The progress achieved the JPIP award, a high-profile district governance award is to be used as a performance indicator for the relevant that is coveted by districts and Bupatis. The JPIP award Ministries. The responsibility for sanitation targets lies with competition and evaluation is carried out by the Jawa Pos the Ministry of Health. The Health Minister has asked all Institut Pro-Otonomi (JPIP) a foundation of East Java's larg- provincial governors to submit bimonthly reports and con- est media network. JPIP's evaluation indicators for sanita- sequently Bupatis are required to report monitoring data tion are the same as the project's outcome and performance from their districts every two months. Such demand from indicators. Community-access monitoring data, ODF- the national level will help focus the Bupatis' attention on achievement data, and the cost-effectiveness analyses of regular monitoring of access to improved sanitation. www.wsp.org 15 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Improving Data Collection and Reporting FIGURE 8: BENCHMARKING DISTRICT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE IN EAST JAVA (2009) District sanitation programs are scored on ten process indicators in an an- nual benchmarking assessment. Five indicators assess outcomes, while the 10 10 other five assess process. This visualization clarifies, at a glance, areas of 10 10 high and low performance. WSP and the provincial government compiled and presented these results at annual Stakeholder Learning Reviews in 2009 and 2010, sparking a sense of competition, rich learning exchanges, and fruitful 10 10 discussions on the way forward among stakeholders from all districts. 5 At right, the comparative weightage for each of the 10 indicators. Note: Two process indicators (related to Supply Improvement) could not be measured in 15 5 2009. Thus, the top chart shows scores for eight out of possible 10 indicators. 15 Key Sanitation access gained per Rp. 1M program investment Program cost per ODF community achieved Outcomes Household investment leveraged per Rp. 1M program investment Additional people gaining access to improved sanitation Number of communities achieving ODF during implementation year 90 Number of communities triggered Process District sanitation budget used for non-construction activities 80 District sanitation budget allocation per unserved household - Number of trained masons per sub-district delivering "WC-ku sehat" options 70 - Number of vendors per sub-district selling/promoting "WC-ku sehat" options 60 50 Score 40 30 20 10 0 Je lan m o nd erto on n ng g n an rn jang Ng tan Pa ng uw o M rjo g Ke o jo iun tu tan M ggo Bo jok r T k Ng n su p en go G gi ol k Jo uan m k ng ng M tar Bl i Si ri e aw Sa ond La u b a Ba pan si r ny os an ob ale ga Pa ene Su ju di an M mb go Po as u a ka Tr oro a re Bo ad i e ci an Ba ow ag do al in r Tu mb a Pr gg ag ne ek b m m o Lu Si lu Pa Districts 16 Global Scaling Up Sanitation VII. Summary of Key Learning Measurement and monitoring of outcomes by all levels people's aspirations to upgrade existing facilities to safer, of stakeholders is the key to achieving goals. Implement- healthier, "improved" versions. ing agencies have traditionally monitored only inputs and outputs, while leaving outcome measurement to post-proj- Manual data transfer from community maps to local ect external evaluation studies. This has proven to be a government databases becomes burdensome when pro- costly way of finding out too late that outcomes were often grams scale up. To monitor progress, local government not achieved. TSSM has chosen, therefore, to combine pro- staff visits communities on a monthly basis to collect data gram implementation with progress monitoring towards and observe progress. In East Java, however, the number of desired outcomes by: a) defining desired outcomes in easily triggered communities needing monthly monitoring measurable ways (e.g., elimination of open defecation in a reached into thousands within two years. Manual data community, or 100% household access to improved sanita- transfer became difficult. Since November 2009, progress tion through self-financing) and b) involving key stake- reporting to sub-district and higher levels has been made holder groups (participating communities, local government through mobile phones into a computerized database. This staff, sanitation service providers) in monitoring progress has greatly improved data flow from the community to sub- towards them. district and higher levels. All districts are scheduled to re- ceive training to operationalize the text message-based Making monitoring fully public and transparent cata- monthly reporting. Field visits and observation-based ODF lyzes community action for time-bound collective verification by local government teams are used to cross- change. Participatory monitoring using social maps that are check phone-reported data. drawn and regularly updated by community members can be used to track monthly changes in community-wide sani- Institutional incentives are necessary to make monitor- tation behavior and access to improved sanitation. Using a ing data flow smoothly and regularly. While the desire to public, visual approach, everyone in the village can see and become ODF drives community monitoring, local govern- check progress by individual household, street, neighbor- ment agencies involved in monitoring need to be motivated hood, or hamlet. The community is motivated to achieve by other means. Institutional incentives for regular and reli- ODF as soon as possible, which brings immediate rewards able monitoring are needed, but run the risks of being cor- such as greater self-worth and prestigious recognition from rupted if they are entirely internally operated. External, local governments and neighboring villages. Government third-party, evaluation-based incentives may be more effec- databases need only pick up and consolidate community tive than internal ones. With this intent, in 2008 WSP sup- data periodically from social maps, and use it to manage and ported a collaboration with The Java Post, East Java's biggest improve sanitation program implementation media network, to incorporate sanitation program perfor- mance as a criterion for evaluation of district self-gover- Communities are able to generate high quality monitor- nance. The Jawa Pos Institut Pro-Otonomi (JPIP) is a ing data aligned with Joint Monitoring Program indica- foundation of the media network that conducts annual tors. In East Java, the project's implementation team uses evaluations involving public surveys, program data analysis, local terminology and descriptions for "improved" and "un- and observations. JPIP's evaluation indicators are the same improved" sanitation that are aligned with the indicators of as the Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Project's out- the global Joint Monitoring Program. This is helping to come and performance indicators. The prestigious JPIP spread public awareness of what differentiates an improved award has awakened interest and accountability for sanita- sanitation facility from an unimproved one. The social tion program performance among political leaders and ad- mapping legends differentiate between the two, and drive ministrative heads in East Java districts. www.wsp.org 17 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Summary of Key Learning Long term sustainability of sanitation MIS requires de- proportions of ODF communities out of the total commu- mand for such data from national systems. The institu- nities in the district is an essential prerequisite to sustained tionalization of a national sanitation MIS that regularly and monitoring. The August 2010 Presidential Instruction (see unequivocally demands district-level data on both access to section 8, last para) could open the doors to the establish- improved sanitation (JMP definitions ), and numbers and ment of such an MS. 18 Global Scaling Up Sanitation VIII. Next Steps · The reliability of mobile phone-based data report- Rural Sanitation Project. Communities that achieve ing at scale has yet to be evaluated. The data comes ODF status and are verified may discontinue further into a computerized gateway at the district level and monitoring activities unless district governments ex- can be immediately used for consolidating and pre- pand their rural sanitation programs beyond elimi- senting data summaries in graphic form. In princi- nation of open defecation toward Total Sanitation, ple, consolidations upward to province and national espousing other key hygiene behavior changes of the levels are possible. These developments would be strategy such as handwashing with soap, food and worth pursuing based on an evaluation of the qual- drinking water hygiene, and safe disposal of domes- ity of data during the community to district transfer. tic solid and liquid waste. · East Java provincial government and several district · Indonesia's 2008 National Strategy for Commu- governments are keen to test linking the data from nity-based Total Sanitation has provided a policy SMS monitoring to district government websites in foundation for a holistic approach to sanitation real time. This capability would be strategic, since, if and hygiene behavior improvements in the Indo- it can be accomplished, it would attract the attention nesian population. But there is no national level of decision makers (Bupati). action plan or roadmap yet available about how this national strategy will translate into action. In order · The provincial scale model of an institutional in- to mobilize political commitment and continued centive system developed through the JPIP award district government financing for what WSP and scheme seems more manageable than national level partners have set in motion, WSP and partners are award schemes (e.g., India's Nirmal Gram Puraskar focusing on helping all East Java districts develop Yojana). It remains to be seen if other Indonesian Strategic Plans for Total Sanitation for 2010­2014. provinces are willing to adopt such schemes or simi- If these plans produce desired clarity about the way lar opportunities. forward for districts, the process will be picked up for replication by other provinces. In the highly · It remains to be seen if the JPIP award will suf- decentralized Indonesian system, this route may fice to keep sanitation monitoring systems working prove more feasible for scaling up than a national after the end of this phase of the Global Scaling Up roadmap. www.wsp.org 19 www.wsp.org FORM LB--1: Monthly Progress Report District: JOMBANG Sub-district: Peterongan Month of Reporting: October Year: 2009 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Baseline data of community's access (HHs) Cumulative count of community's access till this month Total # of Still open Still open Households Improved Unimproved Shared defecation Improved Unimproved defecation Name Name of Progress Report latrine latrine latrine (OD) latrine latrine Shared latrine (OD) Remarks of hamlet/ # of # village communities people R M P R M P R M P R M P R M P R M P R M P R M P R M P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Senden Nglawan 686 4 111 41 2 50 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 59 33 2 51 10 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 57 28 Columns (1), (2), (3), (4), (32) are self-explanatory Columns (5), (6), (7) are numbers of households, by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Columns (8), (9), (10) are numbers of households owning and using improved latrines for defecating (baseline), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Columns (11), (12), (13) are numbers of households owning and using unimproved latrines for defecating (baseline), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Appendix 1: Sample Monthly Progress Report Columns (14), (15), (16) are numbers of households having and using shared latrines for defecating (baseline), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Columns (17), (18), (19) are numbers of households that still practice open defecation (baseline), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Columns (20), (21), (22) are increased numbers of households owning and using improved latrines for defecating (since the baseline count), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Columns (23), (24), (25) are changed (increased or decreased since the baseline count) numbers of households owning and using unimproved latrine for defecating, by welfare classification: Appendix 1: Sample Monthly R=rich, M=middle /In between, P=poor Columns (26), (27), (28) are changed (increased or decreased, since the baseline count) numbers of households having and using shared latrine for defecating (baseline), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor Columns (29), (30), (31) are changed numbers of households that are still practicing open defecation (to be compared to the baseline count), by welfare classification: R=rich, M=middle/In between, P=poor 21 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village Who Should Use This Format? 5. Efforts are under way to convert all existing la- · This format is for an independent verification. trines to improved latrines and to popularize other Therefore, it should not be used by members of any key behavior changes towards total sanitation. community to verify their own community. 2) Total sanitation is achieved if all households in a · The verification team should consist of health cen- community: ter staff, a sub-district/district cadre, a villager from 1. Have access to and use improved latrines for all another hamlet/village, and members of other com- excreta disposal. munity development agencies. 2. Wash hands with soap properly before eating, · External facilitators who worked with the commu- after defecating, after cleaning up babies' excre- nity, should NOT do the verification. ment, and before touching food. · Members of the community that is being verified 3. Use safe practices for handling and storing drink- can accompany verification teams to help them find ing water and food. the households to visit, but MUST NOT participate 4. Use safe practices for disposing of household in verification process in any way. waste ( liquid and solid). 3) Improved latrines are facilities to dispose of feces in A. Definitions such ways that : 1) A community has achieved ODF status if: 1. They do not contaminate water bodies; 1. All households defecate only in latrines and dis- 2. Prevent contact between excreta and human pose of babies' feces only into latrines. beings; 2. No human waste is seen around the environment. 3. Prevent access to excreta by flies or other insect 3. There are sanctions, rules or other safeguards vectors and animals; imposed by the community to prevent open 4. Prevent foul smell; defecation. 5. Are easy to keep clean and safe to use. 4. There is a monitoring mechanism established by the community to track progress towards 100% households' ownership of improved latrines. 22 Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village TW 1 Construction Quality, O&M, and Use of Household Latrines and Facilities (Observed by Facilitator) # of latrines observed1 Score: 1 = yes, 0 = no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Well functioning latrine, used for defecation 2. Latrines used to dispose of baby excrement 3. Well constructed closet and platform/slab 4. Pit at a safe distance of >10m away and downstream from water bodies 5. There is lid for the dry pit hole or water seal in the closet 6. Feces cannot be accessed by flies or other vectors in- cluding rats or other animals 7. No feces visible on floor/wall/seat 8. There is water and soap in or near latrines (see if you can wash hands there) 9. There is facility for hand washing before eating 10. No human excrement (particularly child excrement) seen in the yard, garbage, drains Total score Note: the description of each latrine observed can be put in a separate sheet of paper. 1. based on the numbers indicated on the social map For analysis: No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 as indicators of behavior change of defecating to latrine; No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as indicators that the latrine which used is categorized as improved latrine; No. 8 and 9 as indicators of other hygiene and sanitation behavior, such as handwashing B. Latrine observation sheet for household: 5. Report the result to community, as follows: 1. Name of Community/Village: · Explain the ODF criteria one by one, including 2. Name of Kecamatan/District/Province: the score and what it means. 3. Name of Puskesmas (Health centre in sub-district): · Explain criteria of "improved latrine" and "un- 4. Activity date: improved latrines," give examples of latrines "not 5. Name of verifier: improved" still found in community. Explain that the unimproved toilet can be easily damaged Process Steps and does not last long, which causes the ODF 1. Before starting the verification, discuss each of the village to lose its ODF status, and the commu- 10 questions, one by one, with the team, to ensure nity should strive to upgrade them to "improved common understanding. latrines" as soon as possible. 2. Use Social Map to divide responsibility for observa- · Explain to community whether they can now tion and verification among team members. Make declare their ODF status. If not, explain what sure that they have the correct house number / name improvements need to be made and where in the of the family head of the household to be visited. community or at the school. 3. Let all team members complete home visit observa- · Communicate to community that the verifi- tions and interviews. cation team will be back to check whether the 4. Create a summary of the results together using changes/improvements have been are made, so `checklist form' in G2 section (for ODF and Im- that ODF status can be declared. proved latrine). www.wsp.org 23 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village Notes 1. The 10 questions must be adapted to field situations and `read between the lines' like a question in the checklist. 2. Notes from each of the latrines observed and the results of interviews with owners and users are needed like separate formats in section C. 3. If the owner/user of the latrine were not at home, try to find out and search for information from the nearest neighbors. Process notes 1 Observe the latrine (find the indication that latrine was used). Interview the owner, how many times a day is it used? Are they defecating in the latrine consistently? Is anyone still going to the paddy field, river or yard? 2 If they have babies, ask the parents. What about the baby's diaper, washed where? (If washed in toilet, look for evidence.) 3 By observation: Is the slab tilting or cracked? Ask the user how they feel about the safety of that facility. 4 Ask about the source of drinking water used by community. If using a dugwell or borehole, ask where is the position of the water source, and which are the nearest latrines. 5 Observe: for dry pit latrine if the cover is not fully covering the hole, or there is no water seal in a pour flush latrine, score can be 0. 6 Observe: Check if you can see any insects or other animals able to reach the feces in the pit, on the slab or the ventilation pipe. 7 If you see feces on the floor/slab/wall, score is 0, and make a note based on user comment about it. 8 See indicator (availability of water and soap and trace of soap use). During interview, ask member of household to show how they wash hands. If soap is not found inside the latrine, see if it is brought in and used. 9 Find out where they usually eat. Ask where they wash their hands. (See if hand washing facility is conveniently close to eat- ing place. Check actual practice if close to meal time.) 10 Do by observing the surrounding of their house (bushes, gutter, field, river, trash bin, or other places). C. Additional recording sheet for result of household latrine observation No. of Household and Name of Household Head Explanatory Notes/Remarks 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 24 Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village D. Observation sheet for school latrine TW 2 Construction Quality, O&M, and Use of School latrines Lnd Hand-Washing Facilities at Certain Hamlet/Village Numbers of latrines observed1 School 1 School 2 Score: 1 = yes, 0 = no 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1. Well functioning latrine 2. Latrine used by students 3. Well constructed closets/seats/squatting slab 4. Feces storage (underground pit) at a safe distance of >10m away from, and not contaminating water bodies 5. There is fully covering lid for slab hole or water seal in closet 6. safe disposal of human feces preventing exposure to flies or other vectors including rats or other animals 11. No feces on floor/wall/seat 12. There is water and soap in or near latrines (prove this by washing hands) 13. There is facility for hand washing before eating 14. No human excrement (particularly child excrement) in the yard, garbage, sewage system Total Score Note: The description of each latrine observed can be put in a separate sheet of paper. Filling principle same with household observation. E. Notes for each question item It should be identified how many latrines in one school. All latrines have to be observed. No. of questions Process notes 1 2 Score is 0 if latrine only used by teacher (restricted for student). Do confirm by talking to students--if they want to defecate during school time, where do they go? If not using school latrine, why? 3­10 Similar to household checklist www.wsp.org 25 Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village F. Additional recording sheet for result of school latrine observation No. of latrines in each school Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. G. Recapitulation sheet for ODF Hamlet/Village level This process can be done through joint meetings between sanitarian, chief of Village, triggering committee, health volunteers, or other officer concerned in the village level, after the observation process, the B­F part in above sec- tion has been filled in, and all households have been observed. The purpose of this meeting is to ascertain whether the data and information gathered proves that the community can be declared ODF. G.1. Recapitulation of community access to latrine [Use LB-1 form for recap purpose] G.2. Checklist and final notes (ODF and Healthy latrine) 1) ODF status ODF criteria Marking ( ) Explanatory notes/remarks 1. All households defecate only in latrines and dispose of babies' feces only into latrines (Checklist items 1, 2, 5 & 6). 2. No human waste is seen in the environment. (Checklist items 7 & 10). 3. There are sanctions, rules or other safeguards imposed by the community to prevent open defecation. 4. There is a monitoring mechanism made by the community to achieve 100% household ownership of improved latrines. 5. Efforts are under way to upgrade existing latrines to improved latrines and popularizing other key behavior change towards total sanitation. Notes: No. 3: Find out what kind of rules/sanction and note it down. Make sure that this is real by doing a cross check with some members of the community No.4: Check by asking to meet the monitoring team and find out how the monitoring mechanism works. Note down the mechanism.. 26 Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information Appendix 2: Guidelines for ODF Verification of Hamlet/Village 2) Hygienic/Safe/Healthy latrine Healthy latrine criteria Marking ( ) Remarks 1. Not contaminating water bodies. Checklist no-4. 2. No contact between feces and humans. Checklist no-5, 6 & 7. 3. Safe disposal of human feces, preventing ac- cess to feces by flies or other vectors including animals. Checklist no-5, 6. 4. No unpleasant smells from latrines. Checklist no-5. 5. Toilets easy to clean and safe for users. Checklist no-3. Date: ..............................., .........., Known by: .............................. Prepared by (team names): .................................. Chief of village ........................................................................................................................ Sanitarian .............................................................................................................................. www.wsp.org 27