1. The Global Sanitation Fund: Scoping and diagnosis of the GSF approach to EQND
White Sands, Tanzania
11-15 September 2017

2. M&E related challenges

3. Some findings
Found varying levels and ways in which potentially disadvantaged groups were recorded
Found situations where those responsible might not register all information on disadvantage in order to avoid having to do anything about it – for lack of time, understanding, resources
Found people in ODF villages that had slipped through the net, and that hadn’t been registered

4. Biggest challenges
Confusion over terminology and who should be included under the term ‘disadvantaged’
Confusion over people who may be considered disadvantaged but are able to build, access and maintain a latrine themselves
No requirement from GSF for regular reporting

5. Biggest challenges
Identification of who might be disadvantaged being left up to community leadership with no systematic follow-up to understand what is happening or who is falling through the net
The time it takes to update household registers with all households

6. Recommendations

7. On terminology
Use the term ‘potentially disadvantaged’ as an overview term which includes ‘individuals and groups who may be vulnerable, marginalised, excluded or actively discriminated against, or experiencing inequities, inequalities or stigma’.

8. Set minimum requirements for EQND MEL, with some adaptation to context
Response:
Inclusion in results framework
Emphasis in outcome surveys
Inclusion in household registers

9. Systematisation of EQND related data collection into existing household registers; but keep assessment as simple as possible of key factors such as:
Disability and mobility limitations: self-reporting
Ability to earn an income and assets: community knowledge with guiding criteria
Response: proposed minimum information for household registers

10. 3. Use the A,B,C categories
See slide 14 and after

11. Establish and report on those affected by geographic or disaster related challenges separately to those affected by individual, household or group related challenges or barriers
Incorporated in Results Framework through
Disaggregation of key outcomes
SIO 2.4 and SOP 2.7
Integration in household register

12. 5. Three levels of monitoring:
Undertaken internal to community, used by community on ongoing basis: by community leadership, ad hoc basis, including every household in community
Undertaken internal to the community, to be reported to GSF: annual update on entire household register, all households; funded or incentivised
Undertaken by external actors, but with results fed back to community: baseline and outcome surveys

13. Continue to encourage targeted learning and sharing on EQND related issues, including in sustainability studies
Focus on ‘households with disadvantaged individuals’ rather than ‘disadvantaged individuals’

14. Additional recommendations
For people with disabilities and mobility limitations:
It is suggested to add on ‘People with mobility limitations’ to the term people with disabilities – e.g. older people may find it difficult to squat
We are not recommending that detailed analysis of the kinds of disability is done (such as Washington protocol).
For monitoring purposes, we are proposing to recommend that people can self-declare if they have a disability of any kind or level of disability.
It is proposed that all people with a disability are pro-actively followed up - check ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine and awareness of accessibility features that might be useful to them.

15. Clusters of disadvantage, A,B,C model and household registers

17. Proposed that categorisation should initially be undertaken by community leaders, but cross-checked by community representative group and people should be allowed to question categorisation and suggest otherwise
Collect this data alongside data on latrine presence and type, hand-washing facility, soap, cover etc.
Include only self-reporting on disability; do not undertake detailed wealth ranking

18. Household register Note 1 :
Suggest that this data is only needed for the:
Community and external baselines
Yearly updates from community level for donor reporting purposes
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
Note 5
Note 6
Note 7
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C

19. Household register Note 2
It may be that in some communities every household will be indicated as affected by one of the following challenges or risks
This category would be particularly useful if GSF decides to provide some form of support to people living in challenging contexts
Could use a series of codes to indicate which type:
Sandy soils
High groundwater table
Rocky soils
Disaster affected area – earthquake
Disaster affected area – flooding
Conflict affected area
Displaced populations
Very remote
High density low income urban area
Extreme cold climates
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
Note 5
Note 6
Note 7
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C

20. Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household register
Note 3:
People should self-declare – judge whether this may affect ability to construct, maintain and access a latrine
Useful to identify for baseline and proactively follow up and involve in the outcome surveys
Not all of these households will be disadvantaged and need support
Make sure that both people with physical disabilities, mobility issues and also mental health conditions are included
Particularly useful for follow up to ensure that the people with disabilities or who have mobility challenges know of the options for making toilets and bathing facilities accessible
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
Note 5
Note 6
Note 7
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C

21. Household register Note 4 –
It is not proposed that a detailed wealth ranking is undertaken – but person assessing should be from community and have some knowledge on the situation
This category may be indicated by:
Small house or rents house
Little or no land
Few or no livestock
Limited or no savings
All family members work including children
Work is based on low paid daily labour
Majority of income from social security (disability or senior citizens allowance)
Difficulty to make a living adequate to support family
No TV, no mobile phone
Household register
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
Note 5
Note 6
Note 7
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C

22. Household from marginalized group (or has high level of powerlessness)
Household register
Note 5
This may include
groups traditionally marginalized such as Dalits or ethnic minorities in India or Nepal
people from other minority groups known to face forms of exclusion, marginalization, or high level of discrimination; or more likely to have limited literacy etc.
people living in slave like conditions / bonded labour or people living in care
In some communities, this column may remain blank
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
Note 5
Note 6
Note 7
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C

23. Household register Note 6
The households that are indicated as Yes in these columns are considered the ‘potentially disadvantaged households’.
These categories of households should be indicated for any household where a ‘Yes’ answer has been given in one or more of the three ‘Factors within households’ categories
The Category C households are those that are most vulnerable and particular effort will be made in facilitating support for them and following up to check everything is going OK
The Category B households should be OK on their own but should still be pro-actively followed up in case they are facing any unexpected problems such as family members refusing to support them
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3
Note 4
Note 5
Note 6
Note 7
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C

24. Household register Note 7 This question may or may not work
Factors within households
Considered the ‘disadvantaged households’
<5
5-18
19-64
>65
Geographic challenges or affected by disaster or conflict
Person with disabilities or mobility problems in household
Household lives in extreme poverty and lacks physical and income generating assets
Household from marginalized group
(or has high level of powerlessness)
Judgement on ability to construct, access and maintain a latrine
How many people > 5 years old in the household currently do not always use this household’s latrine F M
Category A B C
Note 7
This question may or may not work
The intention is to try and investigate if any of the household members are not using the latrine – so that this can be followed up.

25. Additional recommendations

26. Community-based processes
Study recommended to include analysis of the participation of people who might be considered disadvantaged, e.g:
In the triggering event
As members of WASH committees etc
Village leaders and key personnel involved in campaign
Through Outcome Surveys?
As Natural Leaders
Regular monitoring, SOP 4.8

27. Community-led ongoing monitoring
Recommendations:
Use standardised forms
Ensure ongoing monitoring of A,B,C households- might use a specific summary list
A once-a-year follow up at community level to monitor and provide progress updates on the progress of all, but particularly the A,B,C groups – funded by the programmes
How feasible is this last point?

28. Targeted learning groups B and C
Recommendation:
The programme could undertake occasional targeted learning exercises for limited numbers of people in categories B and C, as programme progresses. Interviews, FGDs, - info could be fed back into process and into training of CLTS facilitators, NLs, etc.
Focus on questions such as for outcome surveys, around involvement in triggering, decision making and leadership; awareness of support available; satisfaction with process and results; how they managed to build a latrine; how they paid for it, etc.

29. THANK YOU!