1. Call to Action for WASH in Schools
Conference DIHAD
Call to Action for WASH in Schools
The Hague, May
Presentation of the Monitoring-Evaluation-Learning (MEL) framework of the Wins Partnership in Mali
Ministère de l'Education de l'Alphabétisation et des Langues Nationales

2. Why a MEL framework?
As stated in the document « Raising clean hands » evidence base on health, education, gender and participation (community outreach) has already been captured and our MEL framework is meant to strengthen all the evidence already existing on Wins
It is the right of every child to be healthy and learn with dignity. Every child has a right to WASH in Schools.
right to what ? Which Wins standards are we talking about ? This needs to be defined accurately through appropriate M&E framework
It is the duty of every Development Partner to monitor and document field interventions

3. The MEL framework – Global Scope
Overall Goal: Girls and boys in Mali have access to a conducive learning environment for the improvement of education and health outcomes.
 This implies adequate M&E
Specific objectives of the MEL framework :
Get a better understanding of the WASH situation in targeted schools (needs assessment), adapt the interventions accordingly and plan them adequately,
Monitor the impact of the Wins Program on health and education performances: establish a baseline situation and assess at the end of the program if expected outcomes have been achieved in each targeted school
Documenting successes and failures and promoting best practices

4. The MEL framework – Global Scope
In a 4 year timeframe, with more than 1,000 schools targeted, it is worth implementing continuous M&E for improvement based on documented field experiences (successes and failures)
A program with specific means for MEL

5. The MEL framework – Content
3 types of indicators:
Impact indicators to monitor:
Education performances: G/B ratio; Upgrade Success Rate for G/B; Exam Success Rate for G/B; School Attendance Rate, etc.)
Health outcomes: G/B Diarrhea Morbidity Rates
 90 benef. schools + 90 control schools *
Outcomes indicators, mainly to follow-up:
Hygiene practices: Percentage of target schools meeting "WASH in schools" standards; Percentage of target schools in or around which there is no open defecation; Percentage of target schoolchildren systematically washing their hands with soap at critical times; …)

6. The MEL framework – Content
3 types of indicators:
Outcomes indicators, mainly to follow-up:
Local governance: Percentage of target schools with a specific budget line for WASH, with an identified source of finance and evidence of WASH expenses during the school year; Percentage of target schools conducting monthly participative monitoring of the state of WASH facilities and their proper use; Percentage of target schools having received a control visit during the year from the technical departments in charge of supervising WASH in schools ; Percentage of target schools where children conduct extracurricular hygiene awareness and sanitation promotion activities within their community

7. The MEL framework – Content
3 types of indicators:
Output Indicators to follow-up:
The # of schools reaching Wins Standards : Percentage of target schools with access to drinking water / to sanitation facilities that meet the set standards ;
The # of schools having established appropriate governance framework: Percentage of teachers in target schools scoring 15/20 or higher in the hygiene knowledge test ; Percentage of target schools providing regular hygiene education sessions to schoolchildren ; Percentage of schoolchildren in target schools scoring 15/20 or higher in the hygiene knowledge test; Percentage of target schools with a functional and participative School Management Committee (SMC)
 726 beneficiary + 90 control schools*
* Ethic chart for control schools
Control schools can benefit from another support program during the length of the program (ending on 12/2013)
 The technical services of the Education sector need to be informed to take these schools out of the control pool
In the framework of the National Wins Action Plan, the 90 control schools will be considered in priority after 12/2013.

8. The MEL framework – Gender Perspective
Impact indicators are broken down by gender to measure the specific impacts of WASH activities on schoolgirls' situation (health, education performances, school retention rate, hygiene behaviors etc.) and to ensure that their specific needs are properly taken into account.
Ensure separated latrine blocks for girls and boys: monitor the specific standard of 50 girls for 1 latrine in average.
The plan of latrine blocks includes specific features for disabled pupils (easy access to the latrine, latrine seat, etc.).
Ensuring that girls will not exclusively the ones in charge of latrines cleanup, and that younger schoolchildren shouldn’t be involved in activities generating a health risk.

9. The MEL framework - Methodology

10. The MEL framework – Methodology
To establish the MEL framework, the five implementing partners have developed:
A common sets of indicators
A methodology for data collection (including considerations on the need for a control group and the sampling method)
A comprehensive survey questionnaire & a model of knowledge and aptitude testing for school children and teachers
Implementing field surveys: Baseline (achieved) / Mid- term (tbc) / Final
Regular data collection throughout program implementation period (notably data already collected at school level by tech. services of the gov.)

11. The MEL framework – Methodology
Undertaking more in-depth sub-studies on a few key fields of research related to Wins programming in Mali and other developing countries:
Triggering behavior changes for the adoption of hand- washing with soap, diffusion and technology choice
Drivers of school absence / attendance
Menstrual hygiene management and other specific issues for girls
Monitoring the specific outcomes of health interventions in schools (notably de-worming and micronutrient supplementation)
with appropriate academic support (national/international levels)

12. The MEL framework – 1st lessons learnt

13. The MEL framework – 1st lessons learnt
Great buy-in from gov. counterparts
For several partners, gov. counterparts carry out the surveys in the schools
See the opportunity for capacity building and to enhance their current M&E mechanisms (requests for training workshops + restitution workshops)
Opportunity to improve advocacy with relevant data and to improve the national definition of Wins standards
Need to test your MEL tools/strategy beforehand:
Test your questionnaires in few pilot schools to adapt them to field realities that you could not anticipate (level of literacy of pupils, level of “functionality” of WASH facilities…)

14. The MEL framework – 1st lessons learnt
Need to test your tools beforehand:
Need to make a statistic calculation with formative data from few targeted/control schools first to determine if you can detect a realistic difference between intervention and control for each indicator  drop indicators where a difference would not be detectable / Alternatively, if a difference is detectable with fewer schools, reduce sample sizes
Existing WASH facilities:
More latrines than expected but fewer water points
Baseline survey allowed building several indicators about hygiene that were not existing before (Lack of cleaning & oversee in 70 % of schools; Lack of anal cleansing material (water + bouilloire) in 95% schools; Absence of handwashing facility close to the latrines in 95% of schools; Use of school latrines by neighbours during the evening and night / No access possible to disabled children…)

15. The Wins Mali MEL framework can help others to develop their own in their countries, and we will share all the experiences we have,  but how replicable would it be out of the Malian context? Thank You