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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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:
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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Institutional sanitation ladder:
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

18. 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

19. SIO.1: Outcome Indicators Extra-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.

20. SIO.1: Outcome Indicators Sustainability 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).

21. SIO.1: Outcome Indicators Equality 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

22. SIO.1: Outcome Indicators Social 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

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

24. 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

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

26. 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