60716 v1 Volume 1: Main Report A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Disclaimer Raw data for graphs and figures in this report have been taken from the Total Sanitation Campaign online monitoring system in early 2010, but during different months (www.ddws.nic.in and www.nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in). Therefore,there may be some differences in graphs on related indicators due to the time lag between different points when information was accessed and subsequent updates to TSC/NGP websites. Volume 1: Main Report A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Acknowledgements The study feeding into this report, the analysis and report writing was undertaken in the first quarter of 2010 by a team from the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), which included Ajith Kumar, Upneet Singh, Suseel Samuel, Mariappa Kullappa, Rajiv Raman, Manu Prakash, Kakumanu Arokiam, Aravinda Satyavada and Prapti Mittal. Their contribution to the development of this report is acknowledged. Acknowledgement is also due to the participants of the various workshops, where this study was presented, and whose feedback and questions enabled the contents of the report to be enriched. Thanks are also due to Christopher Juan Costain, Regional Team Leader (WSP) for support and feedback, Vandana Mehra for support in production and dissemination of this study, and Lira Suri for coordinating logistics backup support during the study period. The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (DDWS), Government of India, is also acknowledged for the data which formed a major source for this report, as also the Joint Secretary and Director for the comments and Foreword for this report. While all efforts have been made to ensure that the data presented are correct, any inadvertent errors remain the responsibility of the author team. 2 Foreword The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) is a flagship programme of the Government of India, and has achieved significant success over the last one decade. The coverage has increased significantly from 21 percent in 2001 (Census, 2001) to more than 65 percent, according to the TSC online monitoring system. The number of Gram Panchayats which have won the Nirmal Gram Puraskar for achieving total sanitation has also increased to more than 22,000. The TSC can be considered one of the most effective programmes in rural sanitation across the world for its focus on a community-led, demand-driven approach in reaching total sanitation to villages across the country, resulting in rural populations living in a clean, healthy environment. A decade after the implementation of the campaign is an opportune time for the country to assess and ascertain its status, the successes achieved, and the challenges faced, so that the remaining task of ensuring that the entire country becomes Nirmal can be adequately addressed. Despite overall progress, there still remain challenging states and districts where the programme is yet to show satisfactory results. This analysis of the TSC online monitoring data and the assessment of processes adopted by districts correlated with outcomes achieved by these districts will go a long way in understanding the successes and challenges of the programme. The benchmarking of the districts and states, based on the TSC monitoring indicators, helps understand the relative position of states and districts, which enables more focused attention on the lagging areas as well as more encouragement to the leaders. J. S. Mathur Joint Secretary to the Government of India Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Ministry of Rural Development New Delhi 3 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 11 1. INTRODUCTION / 13 1.1 Context / 13 1.2 Purpose / 13 1.3 Methodology / 14 1.4 Organisation of this Report / 21 2. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN / 23 2.1 Background / 23 2.2 Evolution of the Policy Framework for Rural Sanitation / 23 2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines / 24 2.4 TSC Delivery Structure / 25 2.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels / 26 3. A DECADE OF TSC: PROGRESS AND STATUS / 33 3.1 Introduction / 33 3.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge / 33 3.3 Inputs / 34 3.4 Outputs / 40 3.5 Process / 45 3.6 Outcomes / 49 3.7 Goal / 51 4. TSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES AT DISTRICT LEVEL: FINDINGS OF THE RAPID ASSESSMENT / 52 4.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and Rating Scale (Cumulative) / 53 4.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation / 54 4.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity / 57 4.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up / 60 4.5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain / 64 4.6 Component 5: Financing and Incentives / 67 4.7 Component 6: Monitoring / 70 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 73 5.1 Summary / 73 5.2 Recommendations / 73 REFERENCES / 75 NATIONAL WORkSHOP ON RURAL SANITATION: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / 76 5 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes List of Tables Table 1.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 15 Table 1.2: Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model ­ Indicators and Weighted Score / 17 Table 1.3: Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands / 17 Table 1.4: List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment / 18 Table 1.5: Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes / 20 Table 2.1: Population-linked Incentives / 25 Table 3.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 34 List of Figures 1. INTRODUCTION Figure 1.1: Study Methodology / 14 2. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN Figure 2.1: TSC Delivery Structure / 26 Figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India / 27 Figure 2.3: NGP Winners (2005-09) / 27 Figure 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign? / 28 Figure 2.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC Funds? / 29 Figure 2.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the TSC Target? / 29 Figure 2.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target? / 30 Figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level? / 30 Figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States? / 31 Figure 2.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal? / 31 Figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States? / 32 Figure 2.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across Different States? / 32 3. A DECADE Of TSC: PROGRESS AND STATUS Figure 3.1: TSC Objectives, 1999 / 34 Figure 3.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey) / 35 Figure 3.3: Financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR, Crore) / 35 Figure 3.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR, Crore) / 36 Figure 3.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) / 36 Figure 3.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) / 37 Figure 3.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR) / 37 6 Contents Figure 3.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR) / 38 Figure 3.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR) / 38 Figure 3.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR) / 39 Figure 3.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR) / 39 Figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR) / 40 Figure 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative) / 40 Figure 3.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace - Current and Required / 41 Figure 3.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC, by State / 41 Figure 3.16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC / 42 Figure 3.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC / 42 Figure 3.18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC / 43 Figure 3.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC / 43 Figure 3.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC / 44 Figure 3.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target / 44 Figure 3.22: Number of Villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up / 45 Figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in Scaling Up Household Coverage / 46 Figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 46 Figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 47 Figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 47 Figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 48 Figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48 Figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48 Figure 3.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States / 49 Figure 3.31: NGP GPs, by State / 49 Figure 3.32: NGP State-wise Status (%) / 50 Figure 3.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats / 50 Figure 3.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household) Coverage (Year Wise) / 51 4. TSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES AT DISTRICT LEvEL: fINDINGS Of THE RAPID ASSESSMENT Figure 4.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking / 52 Figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for TSC Implementation (n=22) / 55 Figure 4.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and Capacity (n=22) / 58 Figure 4.4: Study Districts' Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up (n=22) / 61 Figure 4.5: Study Districts' Average Performance on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain (n=22) / 65 Figure 4.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22) / 66 Figure 4.7: Study Districts' Average Performance on Financing and Incentives (n=22) / 68 Figure 4.8: Study Districts' Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22) / 71 Figure 4.9: Finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22) / 72 7 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes List of Boxes Box 1: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts / 17 Box 2: Nirmal Gram Puraskar / 25 Box 3: Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim / 56 Box 4: Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from kolhapur / 59 Box 5: Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need / 60 Box 6: Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District / 62 Box 7: Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation: A Case Study of Sirsa District / 63 Box 8: An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience / 67 Box 9: Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District / 71 Box 10: Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachch Puraskar / 72 Numbers 1 lakh 100,000 1 million 1,000,000 1 crore 10,000,000 1 billion 1,000,000,000 Currency US$ 1 = INR 45.95 (April 2010 exchange rate) 8 Abbreviations APL Above Poverty Line NFHS National Family Health Survey AWC Anganwadi Centre NGP Nirmal Gram Puraskar BDO Block Development Officer (Clean Village Prize) BP Block Panchayat NGO non-government organisation BPL Below Poverty Line NRHM National Rural Health Mission BRGF Backward Regions Grant Fund NSS National Sample Survey CEO Chief Executive Officer ODF open defecation free CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation O&M Operation and Maintenance CRSP Central Rural Sanitation Programme PC Production Centre DDWS Department of Drinking Water Supply PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal DEE Department of Elementary Education PRI Panchayati Raj Institution DLM District Level Monitoring (Local Government system) DPAP Drought Prone Areas Programme RGDWM Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission DWSC District Water and Sanitation Committee RSM Rural Sanitary Mart DWSM District Water and Sanitation Mission SHG Self Help Group GDP Gross Domestic Product SLWM Solid and Liquid Waste Management GP Gram Panchayat (village local self SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan government) (Universal Education Campaign) HDI Human Development Index SSHE School Sanitation and Hygiene HH Household Education ICDS Integrated Child Development Scheme SWSM State Water and Sanitation Mission IEC Information, Education and TSC Total Sanitation Campaign Communication UNICEF United Nations International IHHL individual household latrine Children's Education Fund IPC Interpersonal Communication UT Union Territory MDG Millennium Development Goal WHO World Health Organization MIS Management Information System WSP Water and Sanitation Program M&E Monitoring and Evaluation ZP Zila Panchayat/Parishad MPR Monthly Progress Report (district local government) 9 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Glossary (Above/Below) Poverty Line: To measure poverty, it is usual to look at the level of personal expenditure or income required to satisfy a minimum consumption level. The Planning Commission of the Government of India uses a food adequacy norm of 2,400 to 2,100 kilo calories per capita per day to define state-specific poverty lines separately for rural and urban areas. These poverty lines are then applied on India's National Sample Survey Organisation's household consumer expenditure distributions to estimate the proportion and number of poor at the state level. Anganwadi: Pre-school or crčche, an initiative promoted under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) of the Government of India. Nirmal Gram Puraskar (Clean village Prize): NGP is an incentive programme introduced by the Government of India that gives a cash prize to any local government that achieves community-wide total sanitation. More than a fiscal incentive, the award carries tremendous prestige as it is given by the Hon'ble President of India to block- and district-level winners and by high ranking state dignitaries to village-level winners. Panchayati Raj Institutions: The term `Panchayat' literally means `council of five (wise and respected leaders') and `Raj' means governance. Traditionally, these councils settled disputes between individuals and villages. Modern Indian government has adopted this traditional term as a name for its initiative to decentralise certain administrative functions to elected local bodies at village, block and district levels. It is called Gram Panchayat at the village level, Panchayat Samiti at the block level and Zila Parishad at the district level. Information, Education, Communication: IEC is the term used to describe software activities that support and promote the provision of programme services and facilities, for example, media campaigns, capacity-building activities, community hygiene promotion sessions, and so on. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): The MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world's main development challenges. These include: Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Goal 5: Improve maternal health Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development Total Sanitation: A community-wide approach based on participatory principles which seeks to achieve not only 100 percent open defecation free (ODF) communities but also broader environmental sanitation objectives such as promotion of improved hygiene behaviours and solid/liquid waste management. 10 Executive Summary The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) of the Government of India has been in operation for over a decade (1999 to date), and the Nirmal Gram Puraskar, a fiscal incentive programme that rewards local governments (Green Panchayats) that achieve total sanitation, has completed five years (2005 to date). The country has made significant progress in terms of coverage and outcomes. However, these achievements have been concentrated in a few states while others continue to lag significantly behind. This report analyses primary and secondary data on the TSC to arrive at an understanding of the processes, outputs and outcomes at a national level and across the states; this is compared with the inputs which have gone into the programme. These indicators are then compared individually and in combination to benchmark the states, to understand the relative performance of the states. This benchmarking, based on a combination of eight indicators, is undertaken for both states and districts across the country. The analysis is also useful in tracking the efficiency of the states in terms of time taken to achieve total sanitation (rate of acceleration of the programme) and the financial expenditure on achieving outcomes. It, then, extrapolates, based on current achievements, to understand when the various states would achieve the ultimate objective of full coverage. Recognising that the success of a sanitation campaign is dependent on how sustainable the outcomes are, and that its sustainability depends on the quality of the processes adopted in mobilising communities, the study also undertakes a primary analysis of 22 sample districts (across 21 states) to understand the correlation between processes and outcomes. It identifies six qualitative indicators of the process of implementation at the district level, converts these into quantitative scores, and scores each of these districts on a process rating scale. Comparing the process with the benchmarking outcomes clearly shows that there is a strong and positive correlation between the processes and the outcomes ­ wherever the combination of process indicators has been good, so are the outcomes. This has been found to be true even for each of the individual process indicators ­ they too have a strong and positive correlation with outcomes (except on technology). On the basis of the secondary data analysis and primary study on processes, the report concludes and recommends that the districts that have performed well have done so under the same TSC guidelines and conditions ­ they have effectively used the processes in the true spirit of the TSC guidelines and managed to achieve the outcomes. All that the districts that are lagging behind have to do is adopt these processes to achieve better outcomes as well. In addition, the higher levels of government (state and national governments) can facilitate this process through strong monitoring which tracks these processes and sustainability of outcomes, to support the lagging districts/states in effectively implementing the TSC in the true spirit. 11 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 12 1. Introduction 1.1 Context Open defecation is a traditional behaviour in rural India. This, along with the relative neglect of sanitation in terms of development priorities, was reflected in the country's low sanitation coverage at the close of the 1990s when it was found that only one in five rural households had access to a toilet (Census 2001). This fact, combined with low awareness of improved hygiene behaviour, made the achievement of the goal of total sanitation a pressing challenge in rural India. In response to this challenge, the Government of India launched the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in 1999 with the goal of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. The responsibility for delivering on programme goals rests with local governments (Panchayati Raj Institutions -- PRIs) with significant involvement of communities. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies, providing financial and capacity-building support, and monitoring progress. To give a fillip to the TSC, the government introduced an innovative incentive programme known as Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) in 2003. The NGP offers a cash prize to motivate Gram Panchayats (GPs) to achieve total sanitation. In addition, the NGP is an attractive incentive as winners are felicitated by the President of India at the national level and by high-ranking dignitaries at the state level. The TSC has recently completed a decade of implementation (1999-2009) and the NGP has completed five years of operation (2005-10). Since its launch, the programme framework of the TSC and NGP has been based on a common national guideline whereas implementation has been decentralised to the state and district levels. Although there is an undeniable upwards trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage, national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals. Therefore, this is an opportune time to assess the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state and district levels. 1.2 Purpose To achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat (Clean India) within the TSC timeframe, there is need for a clear understanding of the processes that underpin scaling up, replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. The purpose of this report is to synthesise the wealth of information available through secondary sources such as the TSC and NGP online monitoring systems and primary surveys of select districts at different points on the performance curve, to understand the processes by which the national TSC guidelines are implemented at state and district levels and how these contribute to the outcomes achieved. The analysis will focus on the successes and challenges faced in implementing the TSC and NGP, identify gaps and lessons learnt, and recommend programmatic approaches through which these can be addressed. The audience for this report includes policy-makers and implementers at national, state and district levels, and the broader sanitation and hygiene community. 13 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 1.3 Methodology A three-step methodology was followed for this study, as can be seen from Figure 1.1, comprising literature review, and collection and analysis of secondary and primary data. Each of these steps of the methodology followed for this study is described in detail below. 1.3.1 Literature Review The study team reviewed key documents related to the TSC and NGP implementation as well as previous studies on the rural sanitation sector in India. Previously, studies on these programmes have been mainly conducted by the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as WaterAid, TARU and Arghyam. These studies have involved different objectives and followed a variety of approaches for sampling and analysis, to develop the methodology and objectives for this assessment. A complete list of documents reviewed is given in the References at the end of this Report. 1.3.2 Secondary Data The TSC and NGP have dedicated online monitoring systems1 which provide quantitative information on progress towards the overall programme goal of universal rural sanitation coverage. This includes information on programme components such as inputs (for example, resources invested in the programme), outputs (for example, the number of toilets built at household, school and pre-school levels), and outcomes (for example, the number of PRIs that have won the NGP). Although the programme component of process is not explicitly covered by the online monitoring system, this can be derived from the data available on the other components, for example, efficiency can be derived from the rate of increase in outputs over time. figure 1.1: Study Methodology Literature review TSC status and trends over a decade Secondary Quantitative analysis of data TSC monitoring data Benchmarking of state and district Methodology performance based on current performance Rating scale Primary Study of sample data districts Correlating implementation process with outcomes 1 The TSC online monitoring system can be accessed at www.ddws.nic.in and the NGP online monitoring system at http://nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in 14 Introduction For this study, data from each of these programme components have been taken from the online monitoring systems and two types of quantitative analyses have been undertaken based on this: a) analysis of the TSC status and trends in progress over the decade; and b) benchmarking of performance based on current status. Each of these quantitative analyses is explained in detail below. a. Quantitative Analysis of TSC Status and Trends Secondary data have been collected on each programme component ­ input, output, process and outcome ­ and the progress towards the overall goal of achieving universal sanitation coverage has been analysed. The results of these findings are presented in Chapter 3 of this report; a snapshot of the data indicators analysed under each programme component is shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC Context Input Output Process Outcome GOAL · No.of · TSCfinancial · Sanitation · Acceleration · NumberofNGP · Progress HH, and allocation and target achieved rate of HH winners made towards institutions expenditure at national and sanitation · State-wise%of universal rural without · Average state level coverage NGP winners sanitation access to TSC project · %school · Reachingthe · NumberofNGP coverage sanitation allocation per sanitation poorest ­ ratio vs total number · Rural district target achieved of BPL and APL of GPs poverty (BPL · TSCallocation · %RSM/PC HH coverage distribution) and target achieved · Reachingthe expenditure on · %SLWMtarget backward and software and achieved drought-prone hardware per areas district · Success · AverageTSC rate of NGP software applications allocation and expenditure per HH · AverageTSC expenditure per BPL HH toilet, school and pre-school toilet · Average expenditure per RSM/PC and SLWM HH: Household; BPL: Below Poverty Line; SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management; RSM: Rural Sanitary Mart; PC: Production Centre; APL: Above Poverty Line 15 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes b. Benchmarking State and District Performance on TSC A quantitative model to benchmark state and district performance on the TSC has been developed which consists of a simple four-step process, explained in Box 1. This model comprises eight key performance indicators, each of which is assigned a weighted score. The maximum cumulative performance score that a state or district can achieve is 100 and the minimum is zero. On this basis, all states and districts have been divided into four colour-coded performance bands depending on the cumulative performance score achieved. 1.3.3 Primary Data An analysis of the processes adopted by the districts was undertaken to understand the correlation between these and the final outcomes achieved by the districts. Districts, for this study, were selected across the performance spectrum, based on which an assessment of their processes was undertaken. These were then compared with their overall performance outcomes to understand how the processes influence outcomes. a. Sampling Purposive sampling was used for the selection of districts and stakeholders for key person interviews as detailed below. Selection of Districts A total of 22 districts across 21 states were selected for this study. The criteria for selection of districts included: · Geographical spread: Districts were selected from the north, east, west, south and north-east regions of the country; and · Differential performance on the TSC: Results of the quantitative benchmarking of district performance on the TSC were used to select districts at different points on the TSC performance curve. The list of sample districts and states selected for this study is given in Table 1.4. Selection of Stakeholders for Key Person Interviews In the sample districts, criteria for stakeholder selection for interviews included: · ShouldhaveparticipatedintheTSCprogrammeforatleastsixmonths;and · Shouldrepresentakeydecision-makerorimplementeratthedistrictorblocklevel. b. Research Protocol To ensure consistency in the assessment findings, a research protocol was used as the basis for conducting key stakeholder interviews in the sample districts selected for this study. This protocol 16 Introduction Box 1: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts Step 1: Select indicators and collect data from TSC/NGP: For a balanced measurement across inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes, eight indicators have been selected from the TSC online monitoring system. This information is reported by the districts and states to the Department of Drinking Water Supply (DDWS) and is available in the public domain on the DDWS website (http://ddws.nic.in). Step 2: Assign scores to each indicator: Each indicator was assigned a weighted score which specified the maximum and minimum range of marks. Two principles underlying the strategy for assigning weighted scores were: · Higherprioritywasgiventooutcomesandprocessesrelativetoinputsandoutputs.Therefore, the number of NGP Panchayats is given more marks than the percentage TSC budget spent on toilets constructed; and · Themaximumscorewascappedat100. Table1.2: Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model ­ Indicators and Weighted Score # Performance Indicator Type Weighted Score Max. Min. 1. %TSCbudgetspent Input 5 0 2. %householdtoiletstargetachieved Output 15 0 3. %schoolsanitationtargetachieved Output 10 0 4. Financial efficiency (cost per NGP community) Process 10 0 5. Average population per GP Process 10 0 6. Success rate of NGP applications Process 10 0 7. No. of NGP Panchayats Outcome 30 0 8. %NGPPanchayats Outcome 10 0 CUMULATIvE PERfORMANCE SCORE 100 0 Step 3: Sum up scores: This entails adding up individual scores on each indicator to arrive at a cumulative performance score out of a maximum of 100. Step 4: Benchmark districts based on scores achieved: States and districts are ranked in descending order on the basis of the cumulative performance score achieved. The scores are divided into four colour-coded performance bands, as shown in Table 1.3. Table 1.3: Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands Below Average Average Above Average Superior <25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior 17 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Table 1.4: List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment Geographical District State Performance Band Region (based on cumulative performance score on the benchmarking model) North Sirsa Haryana Superior Rewa Madhya Pradesh Above Average Bikaner Rajasthan Average Mainpuri Uttar Pradesh Below Average Hamirpur Himachal Pradesh Below Average Amritsar Punjab Below Average South Shimoga Karnataka Superior Virudhunagar Tamil Nadu Above Average Kottayam Kerala Average Srikakulam Andhra Pradesh Below Average East Bardhaman West Bengal Superior Surguja Chhattisgarh Above Average Gumla Jharkhand Average Begusarai Bihar Average Dhenkanal Orissa Below Average West Kolhapur Maharashtra Superior Valsad Gujarat Above Average Junagadh Gujarat Average Akola Maharashtra Average North East East Sikkim Sikkim Above Average West Tripura Tripura Average Jorhat Assam Below Average Key: <25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior comprised questions on six components that are considered essential for scaling up and sustaining the TSC, namely: 1. Strategy for TSC Implementation 2. Institutional Structure and Capacity 3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain 5. Financing and Incentives 6. Monitoring 18 Introduction Each component is described in detail below. Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation The TSC guidelines provide a broad framework within which states and districts have the flexibility to devise their own strategies for programme implementation depending on the socio-economic and institutional context, terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. A strategy can signal priorities, assign roles and responsibilities, and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. Ensuring the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up. Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. To effectively scale up and sustain TSC outcomes, institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Institutional frameworks should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. Capacity refers to the availability of skilled human resources for TSC implementation, budgetary allocations to effectively implement programme activities, an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC, ability to monitor programme progress, and make revisions as needed. Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up A programme approach consists of specific activities, their timing and sequence. The TSC guidelines advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives. Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity. Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain The TSC guidelines advocate informed technology choices and setting up of alternate supply channels such as Rural Sanitary Marts (RSMs). At the implementation level, technology promotion includes not only separate toilet components (for example, sanitary pans, pipes, traps, etc.) but also existing latrine technology options (for example, septic tank, ventilated double pit toilet, eco-sanitation, etc.). It also includes provision of masonry services for installation, and sanitary services for operation, maintenance and final disposal. Component 5: Financing and Incentives Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. This includes costs for activities under different programme components (for example, school sanitation and hygiene education, administration, etc.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated, released and spent. Incentives can be financial or non-financial, given upfront or post achievement. Component 6: Monitoring Large-scale sanitation programmes such as the TSC require an efficient monitoring system and ability to ensure that the results of monitoring are used to improve programme implementation. Monitoring should be carried out by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring should be collected from all levels, starting with the lowest. 19 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes c. Rating Scale The rating scale was devised to provide a quantitative score card to analyse the findings of the research protocol. In this scale, each component of the research protocol is further sub-divided into five dimensions which describe different field scenarios and carry one mark each. Therefore, each component carries five marks and the maximum score on the rating scale is 30 marks. The cumulative score on the rating scale is converted into a percentage. The scale is depicted in Table 1.5. Table 1.5: Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes Topic Max. Score Score Given 1 Strategy for TSC Implementation i. TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the 1 core group ii. A well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation 1 and monitoring plan exists iii. TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments 1 iv. Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at 1 different levels v. TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit -- community 1 level engagement, post-construction incentive, appropriate technology Sub-total 5 2 Institutional Structure and Capacity i. The nodal agency is functional and effective 1 ii. A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district 1 level and is effective iii. Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block 1 levels (e.g., cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the programme effectively iv. The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments 1 v. Village-level institutions are set up and are effective 1 Sub-total 5 3 Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up i. Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy 1 ii. Implementation is phased 1 iii. Demand creation depends on community mobilisation 1 iv. Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised 1 v. Strategy is implemented at scale 1 Sub-total 5 20 Introduction Topic Max. Score Score Given 4 Technology Promotion and Supply Chain i. Multiple technology options are promoted 1 ii. Technology choices respond to community preferences and 1 are affordable iii. Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe 1 iv. Products and services sourced are easily available 1 v. Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction 1 Sub-total 5 5 financing and Incentives i. Additional instalments are asked for on time 1 ii. There are no funding bottlenecks 1 iii. Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term 1 achievement and long-term sustainability) iv. Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all 1 heads namely SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used) v. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to 1 perform optimally Sub-total 5 6 Monitoring i. Monitoring systems are available at the village level 1 ii. Monitoring system exist for block and district levels 1 iii. Monitoring system track both BPL and APL coverage accurately 1 iv. Monitoring for usage exists 1 v. Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly 1 Sub-total 5 TOTAL 30 TOTAL (%) 100 SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management; IEC: Information, Education and Communication; BPL: Below Poverty Line; APL: Above Poverty Line; ODF: Open Defecation Free 1.4 Organisation of this Report This report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is this introduction which provides the context and purpose of this study and details the methodology adopted for the study, including the research protocol and linked rating scale. It also introduces the TSC performance benchmarking model which was used as the basis for selecting the sample districts for this study. 21 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Chapter 2 provides an in-depth overview of the TSC and NGP incentive programme, including key implementation principles, shifts in the programme guidelines over the past decade, and institutional arrangements. Following this overview, it details national and state-level trends in the performance on TSC and NGP, based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model introduced in the methodology. Chapter 3 presents the findings of an analysis of secondary data from the online monitoring systems of the TSC and NGP. This is mainly quantitative data and analysis focuses on the linkages between inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes in terms of how they contribute towards the programme goal of universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the primary study which tracks processes with outcomes. Each dimension of the assessment framework is used to analyse the linkage between the dimensions (individual and cumulative) and outcomes achieved. Chapter 5 provides overall conclusions and summarises the recommendations of this study. 22 2. Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign 2.1 Background A broad definition of sanitation includes interventions for the safe management and disposal/re-use of excreta and solid and liquid waste. It includes both infrastructure (for example, latrines, compost pits) and behaviour (for example, improved hygiene practices, habit formation to switch from open to fixed point defecation). Lack of adequate sanitation and the linked burden of disease take an immense toll on life in India. Children are particularly vulnerable (Murray and Lopez 1997); each day, an estimated 1,000 children under five die in the country because of diarrhoea alone, a preventable disease (WaterAid 2006). Prevalence of child under-nutrition in India (47 percent according to National Family Health Survey III, 2005-06) is among the highest in the world and nearly double that of Sub-Saharan Africa. Child under-nutrition, aggravated by diarrheal disease, is estimated to be responsible for 22 percent of the country's burden of disease (World Bank 2004). Sanitation related illnesses in both children and adults deplete productivity and resources, ultimately contributing to deprivation. Disaggregating the impacts of sanitation by gender reveals that the privacy afforded by access to adequate sanitation facilities imparts a sense of dignity, especially to women and young girls. Access to safe sanitation in schools is also linked to continued education enrolment by young girls and teenage women, particularly at puberty (Bruijne et al 2007). Sanitation is, therefore, appropriately considered a policy priority in India and the next section describes the evolution of the policy response to this issue. 2.2 Evolution of the Policy framework for Rural Sanitation The responsibility for provision of sanitation facilities in India is decentralised and primarily rests with local government bodies ­ GPs in rural areas and municipalities or corporations in urban areas. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies/ guidelines, providing financial and capacity-building support and monitoring progress. In the central government, the Planning Commission, through Five Year Plans, guides investment in the sector by allocating funding for strategic priorities. 2.2.1 Pre-1986: Ad hoc Investments through five Year Plans Rural sanitation did not feature on the investment horizon during the first five plan periods as reflected in its negligible funding share. However, it received prominence from the Sixth Plan (1980-85) onwards amid the launch of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in 1980. In addition, responsibility for rural sanitation at the central level was also shifted from the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation to the Rural Development Department. 23 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 2.2.2 Conventional Approach: Central Rural Sanitation Programme (1986-98) In 1986, the Rural Development Department initiated India's first national programme on rural sanitation, the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP). The CRSP interpreted sanitation as construction of household toilets, and focused on the promotion of a single technology model (double pit pour-flush toilets) through hardware subsidies to generate demand. The key issue of motivating behaviour change to end open defecation and use toilets was not addressed, contributing to the programme's failure. Although more than Rs. 660 crore2 was invested and over 90 lakh3 latrines constructed, rural sanitation grew at just 1 percent annually throughout the 1990s and the Census of 2001 found that only 22 percent of rural households had access to toilets. 2.2.3 Sector Reforms: Total Sanitation Campaign (1999-2012) In light of the relatively poor performance of the CRSP, the Government of India restructured the programme, leading to the launch of the TSC in 1999. A key learning that informed TSC design was that toilet construction does not automatically translate into toilet usage, and people must be motivated to end open defecation if rural sanitation outcomes are to be achieved. A second key learning was the recognition of the `public good' dimensions of safe sanitation and the realisation that health outcomes will not be achieved unless the entire community adopts safe sanitation. Accordingly, the TSC introduced the concept of a "demand-driven, community-led approach to total sanitation" (DDWS 1999). This was further strengthened with the introduction of the NGP in 2003, which incentivised the achievement of collective outcomes in terms of 100 percent achievement of total sanitation by a GP. Key features of the TSC include: · Acommunity-ledapproachwithfocusoncollectiveachievementoftotalsanitation; · FocusonInformation,EducationandCommunication(IEC)tomobiliseandmotivatecommunities towards safe sanitation; · MinimumcapitalincentivesonlyforBelowPovertyLine(BPL)households,postconstruction and usage; · Flexiblemenuoftechnologyoptions; · Developmentofasupplychaintomeetthedemandstimulatedatthecommunitylevel;and · Fiscalincentiveintheformofacashprize­NGP(Box2). 2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines Since the launch of the TSC, the programme guidelines have been modified twice, once in 2004 and again in December 2007. In 2004, the revision in TSC guidelines followed a mid-term review of the programme. The revision led to a focus on sanitary arrangements, not merely on the construction of household toilets. The School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) component was strengthened; and the provision of toilets was extended to Anganwadi Centres (AWCs), all levels of schools (primary, middle, secondary, etc.) and all establishments of the GP. The Government of India sought to re-orient the focus of the sanitation programme to achieving the outcome of an open defecation free (ODF) environment. Thus, not only individual households but also communities, villages, and Panchayat governments started to be targeted. 2 For explanation of `crore', refer to numbers on page 8. 3 Ibid. 24 Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign Box 2: Nirmal Gram Puraskar The Nirmal Gram Puraskar of the Government of India, introduced in 2003, is an innovative programme that offers fiscal incentives in the form of a cash prize to local governments that achieve 100 percent sanitation, that is, they are 100 percent ODF and have tackled issues of solid and liquid waste management (SLWM). The amount of incentive is based on population as shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Population-linked Incentives (All figures in Rs. 100,000) Particulars Gram Panchayat Block District Population Less 1000 2000 5000 10000 Up 50001 Up Above Criteria than to to to and to and to 10 1000 1999 4999 9999 above 50000 above 10 lakh lakh PRIs 0.50 1.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 Individuals 0.10 0.20 0.30 Organisations other than PRI 0.20 0.35 0.50 Providing post-achievement incentives is a significant shift from the upfront subsidy promoted by conventional rural sanitation programmes. The NGP has elicited a tremendous response with the number of GPs winning this award going up from a mere 40 in 2005 to over 22,000 to date. The NGP helps to raise the status of the winning Panchayat, and create peer pressure among neighbouring Pancahyats as well as tough competition at all tiers of the administration. Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply In 2007, the TSC guidelines were modified again to include an emphasis on developing community managed and ecologically safe environmental sanitation systems focusing on SLWM. Up to 10 percent of the project costs could now be used for meeting upfront capital costs incurred under the SLWM component. The IEC component was strengthened and the provision of a revolving fund was extended to community-based organisations, Above Poverty Line (APL) households and Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) centres. On account of rising input costs, the incentive provision for BPL families, to be given post construction and verification of toilet usage, was increased from Rs. 625 to a maximum of Rs. 2,500. 2.4 TSC Delivery Structure The TSC operates through district projects of three to five years' duration, jointly financed by central and state governments with contribution from beneficiary households (generally in the ratio of 65:25:15). At the district level, Zila Panchayats lead the implementation of the project ­ a District Water and Sanitation Mission (DWSM), headed by the Zila Panchayat, with Deputy Commissioners/ 25 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Collectors/Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and other heads of departments as members, is set up. Similarly, at the block and the Panchayat levels, Panchayat Samitis and respective GPs are involved in the implementation of the TSC. The TSC delivery structure is shown in Figure 2.1. figure 2.1: TSC Delivery Structure Government of India Centre Funding, technical support, M&E, training (Ministry of Rural Development, and inter-sectoral coordination Department of Drinking Water Supply) Funding, technical support, development State State Government of state action plan, inter-sectoral (Nodal Department) coordination, training, M&E Zila Panchayat ­ DWSM Facilitate and support overall District (and other government and implementation, development of action plan, non-government institutions) inter-sectoral coordination, training, M&E Panchayat Samiti Institution building (e.g., GPs, Watsan Block (Extension workers of government and committee), facilitate supply chains, non-government organisations) hygiene education, monitoring Gram Panchayat Institution building, mobilisation, facilitate village (Motivators) construction of hardware, hygiene Community education, monitoring, O&M M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation; O&M: Operation and Maintenance 2.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels 2.5.1 TSC Performance at National Level The TSC is currently being implemented at scale in 606 districts of 30 states/Union Territories (UTs). As can be seen from Figure 2.2, after sluggish progress throughout the 1980s and 1990s, rural sanitation coverage (individual household latrines) has nearly tripled from approximately 22 percent in 2001 to 61 percent in 2009 and 65 percent in 2010, post-TSC and -NGP. 26 Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India 70 65% 61% 1999 onwards: Total Sanitation 60 1980-90: International Campaign 57% Drinking 50 Water 45% Supply & 1986-99: Central Rural 2005 38% PERCENT 40 Sanitation Sanitation Programme onwards: Decade 31% Nirmal Gram 30 27% Puraskar 21.9% 22.4% 23% 20 17% 18% 14% 11% 10% 11% 10 4% 6% 1% 3% 0 1980 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. Accessed in March 2010. Since its launch, the NGP has been very successful as a fiscal incentive for achievement of sanitation outcomes. The number of winners has gone up from approximately 40 in 2005 to 22,569 in 2009, as can be seen from Figure 2.3. The number of NGPs in each state across the years is provided in Volume 2, Annex 34. figure 2.3: NGP Winners (2005-09) 25,000 22,569 18,013 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,743 5,000 38 798 NGPs ­ annual 0 NGPs ­ cumulative 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. Accessed in March 2010. 27 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 2.5.2 TSC Performance at State Level Despite the undeniable upward trend at the national level, these aggregates disguise state-level disparities in performance on the TSC. This section presents the performance of states on the TSC based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model, which tracks performance based on a mix of outcome, output, processes and input indicators, and, thereafter, ranks districts and states based on performance (as against alphabetically) (for more details of this model, see Box 1 on page 17). The performance of different states in terms of cumulative score is presented in Figure 2.4 and the scores achieved on constituent indicators are presented in the remainder of this section. figure 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign? 100 88 90 79 76 80 70 70 70 65 64 63 62 60 60 59 60 PERCENT 48 47 46 50 45 44 41 41 39 39 35 40 29 30 25 23 22 21 19 15 20 15 10 0 Ch Tri d ch i an y ur a ac K ha P As ya Pu m la Bih b izo ar Or m ja a Ut ga n d ar nd An ttar tisg a dh Pr arh hy ad h Pr esh rn sh Sik a G im ac t Ha al P W il N a M t Be u as l Ke a du vel ar ga m ra M err Go Ra iss r r ak n an un J& Na stha ad Pr es es ad a ta lan ra eg l pu ht sa ra ip la Ka ade M ha Ta rya nj k Jh kha Hi uja ah n Pu Ha M ra ad at h kh ra DN U hat M m a Ar Key: Performance Band <25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior The detailed score for each indicator, along with the aggregate score for each state, and overall rank and score for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 1. The rank of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume 2, Annex 2 (rank wise) and Volume 2, Annex 3 (alphabetically). a. Indicator 1 (Input): Percent TSC funds Spent This indicator measures the financial investment in the TSC project, calculating the percentage of spend against total allocation (Figure 2.5). b. Indicator 2 (Output): Percent Individual Household Latrine Target Achieved This indicator measures an output ­ the percentage of individual household toilets constructed against the target (Figure 2.6). 28 Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign figure 2.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC funds? 136 150 % TSC Budget Spent 100 PERCENT 75 76 71 70 66 58 54 49 44 42 40 41 50 26 28 29 26 29 23 25 25 24 20 20 16 19 15 14 4 2 0 Pu eli a b m du ur Ka r r y Bih r ar eg m Ut j a a ra an Or d a ac Pr oa r h ar sh rn d M dhra gala a hy ra d M Pra esh Ch aras esh W attis tra t B rh Ta Guja l il N t Ut Ha du ra a Ke h M rala Tri m Si k a ki m ga i m ra Ra alay iss An N atak rP n r l P es m s M nja an Ka han ad P n pu M Assa ra m Pu nip es ga av Jh ade de ta sth un al G ta rya & che a h en sh ha ad a d ah d kh i zo rH h k a ga h Na Ar ach u & m a Hi Ja dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. figure 2.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the TSC Target? 109 120 % Household Latrines Achieved 101 98 97 96 100 90 87 74 73 80 72 PERCENT 61 59 60 53 60 48 45 45 42 38 36 40 32 31 28 23 25 19 15 20 12 9 1 0 m Pud anip i u uch ur Ka erry Bih r ar l P am ga h eg nd ar ya d jas sa Ch arna an tti ka Ut Pu rh ad ra ab Ut Pra nd An ah rad h dh ara esh Ta rade a W il N sh t B du l ac G a ra t Ha esh Tri na M pura Ke m Sik la kim M vel ga i l P ra P tr Go m Na des M r P es an ra ra Ra Oris a Jh hala ha ta K th rya M ta nj M la a es a ra sh ha uja en ha Ass a sg sh ta d d kh hy kh izo rH ra m ga a & Na ac m & un m a Hi Ja Ar dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. c. Indicator 3 (Output): Percent School Sanitation Target Achieved This indicator measures an output ­ the percentage of school toilets constructed against the target (Figure 2.7). d. Indicator 4 (Process): Success Rate of NGP Applications The number of NGP applications has been increasingly geometrically, from 464 in 2005 to 13,956 in 2009. Simultaneously, the number of winners trails the number of applicants in any year. States (and districts) may put in as many applications, but the true test of outcome achievement is the number of NGP winners (Figure 2.8). By recognising and giving a higher weight to high success rate, the benchmarking model rewards process and a good internal monitoring system to evaluate ODF applications. 29 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes figure 2.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target? % School Sanitation Achieved 108 120 100 100 98 99 97 95 94 94 94 93 91 91 100 90 90 87 80 77 80 PERCENT 66 61 59 55 55 60 51 51 47 44 40 25 20 0 0 0 M ch i h y ga a Hi We an d ha Ben r ra l sh Ut Kas ar kh i r d A a Ra ssam dh rk n Pr d ha Ori h Ut l Pra ssa ra h Tri esh M Pu ura Ta rash b M hh l Na a ad at du Pr arh Ke h Ha rala rn a Si k a M ki m Gu m at du vel l P ga m st ipu eg err Na alay Go m tr Ka ryan ak An Jha tha es r P es es ta hm M lan an ra han a a & Bih jar ra de ah nj Pu Ha p hy tisg ad ta d d ad at i zo jas ra C i r ga a Na u ac ac m & un m a Ja Ar dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level? Success Rate in NGP Till Date 120 98 100 85 80 68 65 PERCENT 64 63 60 60 51 46 44 44 45 40 39 39 36 32 32 40 28 27 25 22 21 21 20 20 12 20 0 0 0 0 Ut Raja at ra n sh hy ra a kim Pu r Ha a ch li izo y Gu am Ch Pra esh tti sh h Pr ar Ut Pu sh kh b Ha and Or a M issa u Be r sh l A ir ac rk m Sik la l P nd g h M gh nd ar ya a rn u Ke a Ka ga m st ipu M err du ve ga Go ad l P ur n m tr ak rP a ar Na des Ka Nad m ta nja ra ra Bih jar m Jha ssa ah ala de ha de e ta sth rya ha ha M ala Ta ash & n r M ha Trip sg a d ad at m e n ra Ja W a il ra e Na dh ac An & un a Hi Ar dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. e. Indicator 5 (Process): Average Population per Gram Panchayat The benchmarking model is not merely based on the number of NGP Gram Panchayats, but also factors such as the size of each GP and the corresponding level of effort required to make a GP Nirmal (Figure 2.9). Bonus points are given to the states with the most populous GPs ­ 10 points for those states where the average GP population is greater than 15,000; five points to states where the average GP population is above 5,000 but less than 15,000; and the balance states where the average GP population is below 5,000 receive a zero. 30 Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign f. Indicator 6 (Process): financial Efficiency This indicator measures return on investment by calculating the amount of TSC budget spent to make a Panchayat Nirmal. Therefore, it takes the figure for TSC spend to date and divides it by the number of NGPs winners by a state to date. To incentivise financial efficiency, the benchmarking model only awards bonus points to the top five most financially efficient states, while giving zero points to the remaining states (Figure 2.10). figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States? Average GP Population 40,000 Average Pop <5,000 Average Pop b/w Average Pop 35,000 5,001 and 15,000 >15,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 l P aya Ut izo sh ra m M and Gu tra Ta Trip t il N a Or n ha Pun r dh Har du Ja Utta Prad a ar issa rn d As ka r b ad tt sh m M Pra arh m r Pr esh Ka sh Sik ir W r H ar ar esh t B eli kim jas oa ga al Ke d du rala ry u a m ur n a m Ka han l P ja lan Na ng er jar ga Bih ta ra sa ip es av M de M hha ade & ade a th ya Ra G a h hy isg sh ha al ah d at ch kh an as e ra ac gh k un Me Jh ra a Pu Na u C ac An d m m an Hi Ar a dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in figure 2.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal? financial Efficiency (Rs. in lakhs) 675 800 654 700 600 500 370 400 212 300 183 149 114 200 97 89 80 50 51 58 44 35 33 34 100 19 25 28 17 17 12 8 6 8 7 0 Ut Pra tra ra sh Pu d Ha ab hy ha a Pr ya W ga h Ke a t B nd Ut l Pr and Ch Tr al ra h sh ar Sik la G im Ka sa t dh ttis ra Pr rh M desh an r rn du As ur m ac ark an m a du eli ry M mi m ra ad eg k n ga Go Na des r P es an ra g er Bih An ha ipu Ra ra sa & Oris ra ga ip a la Pu Hav ta de de M M ata rya nj un Jh asth k es la Ka l Na ha sh Ta uja en sh ta ad ch kh ha h izo a a ac ra i r j m ha l Hi Ma Na u m d m an Ja Ar a dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. 31 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes g. Indicator 7 (Outcome): Number of NGP Winners This indicator measures the absolute number of NGP Panchayats out of the total number of GPs in a state. This is equal to the cumulative number of NGPs won by a state (Figure 2.11). h. Indicator 8 (Outcome): Percentage of NGP Winners The performance benchmarking model is designed to reward both absolute and percentage achievement in terms of NGP (Figure 2.12). Recognising and giving points to percentage NGP achievement helps to neutralise the `low base effect'. (Other things being equal, let us say State A has 50 GPs and State B has 500. Both states have been able to achieve 20 NGP Panchayats. Therefore, while the absolute number of NGP achievement is the same, State A is 40 percent NGP while State B is only 8 percent NGP. Therefore, the benchmarking model recognises this and is designed to reward both absolute and percentage achievement.). The percentage of NGP winners of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume 2, Annex 36. figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States? 8,389 9,000 National Average = 753 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 2,096 1,670 1,512 1,263 3,000 1,061 1,087 876 989 2,000 845 522 418 520 225 200 113 164 207 155 1,000 96 31 50 24 63 14 12 0 0 0 2 0 Pu r Ha a ch li Ar mu Man rry ac Ka pur ra r As sh M sam Na oram ha d Pu ya Tri jab Or a Sik a kim ja ar Hi Ut arkh n ac ra nd Ch l Pra and tti sh rn rh Ke ka W Ha la dh Be a Ut a Pr gal ad r Pr esh Pr esh Ta uja h M il N at as u ra l P mi du ve ga Go r iss An est ryan Jh stha G s ah ad eg an ra pu Ra Bih ht m r Ka sga la de ha de e a e m ta a n n ha sh ta ad hy ad ad i at M gal ha kh iz ar a un & r Na & m M a Ja dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. figure 2.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across Different States? 120 99 96 100 79 80 PERCENT 60 33 40 30 17 16 16 15 12 20 11 7 6 6 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ir Na an a Pu Ha r ch li Pu rry A ab ac gh m Ut al Pr laya ra sh jas h Bih n ar sa Ch Pra m tti sh rh Pr and Tri esh Gu ra rn rat ac Ha aka Ta rade a M il N sh W aras u t B ra ga al Ke d Sik la kim nd ga ipu du ve Go l P an Ra des a d m lan Na ng ra pu es ht un Me ssa ra ra An M Oris Jh sga rP e ha de th nj e M Utt rkha ah a Ka ja sh ta ad ad at ha ry hy akh a dh izo e Ka M r a m ad ar a & h u m & m m a Hi Ja Ar dr Da Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. 32 3. A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3.1 Introduction This chapter analyses data from the online monitoring system of the TSC and NGP, a wealth of information at the national, state and district levels. The data have been accessed in March 2010 from the TSC and NGP Management Information System (MIS). This information is presented across six sections: · Context in terms of the scale of the sanitation challenge. It provides information on the number of households and schools that lacked access to sanitation when the TSC was launched along with information on the socio-economic conditions of programme implementation; · Programme inputs begin with the overall TSC budget and then focus on the average project expenditure per district. It also provides information on the allocation to project hardware and software components within the overall financial envelope; · Outputs such as construction of toilets in households and schools; · Programme processes in terms of acceleration of scale-up, inclusion, success rate of NGP applications, and rate of return; · Outcomes such as the number of NGP winners; and · Projections on when India will reach the TSC goal of universal sanitation coverage. The specific indicators analysed under each component are detailed in Table 3.1. 3.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge 3.2.1 Number of Households and Institutions that Lack Access to Rural Sanitation The TSC was launched with the objective of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. This meant the construction of about 12 crore4 toilets at the beginning of the campaign (1999) (Figure 3.1). 3.2.2 Rural Poverty TSC envisaged financial support to the poorer households, defined by the BPL survey of the Government of India. In 1999, according to the TSC baseline survey, 47 percent of all households in India were classified as BPL (Figure 3.2). 4 120 million. 33 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Table 3.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC Context Input Output Process Outcome GOAL · Noof · TSCfinancial · Sanitation · Acceleration · NumberofNGP · Progress HHs and allocation and target achieved rate of HH winners made towards institutions expenditure at national and sanitation · State-wise%of universal rural without · Average state level coverage NGP winners sanitation access to TSC project · %school · Reachingthe · Numberof coverage sanitation allocation per sanitation poorest ­ ratio NGPs vs total · Rural district target achieved of BPL and APL number of GPs poverty (BPL · TSCallocation · %RSM/PC HHs coverage distribution) and expenditure target achieved · Reachingthe on software · %SLWMtarget backward and and hardware achieved drought-prone per district areas · AverageTSC · Success software rate of NGP allocation and applications expenditure per household · AverageTSC expenditure per BPL household toilet, school and pre-school toilet · Average expenditure per RSM/PC and SLWM figure 3.1: TSC Objectives, 1999 1,400 1,202 1,200 1,000 800 x100000 611 591 600 400 200 12 IHHL 4 0 IHHL IHHL IHHL School Pre-school Total APL BPL Toilets Toilet 3.3 Inputs The TSC uses the resources of central and state governments and contributions from beneficiaries to promote access to sanitation facilities. This section looks at financial allocation and expenditure on the project till date. 34 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status figure 3.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey) 86 84 90 76 80 72 70 66 64 64 70 60 59 55 54 54 60 50 49 PERCENT 48 47 45 44 44 45 50 42 36 40 24 24 23 30 21 20 10 6 0 Pu oa ac aja jab l P an Ha esh U ar na ad Pr tra Pr esh Gu sh Ut rna rat r a ka d t B ia Ch K al Ta tisg a il N h u M ar Sik ur dh A kim m ar sh Or d T ssa eg ra ga a ac Miz nd l P am sh l Na alay m ar ad an an es Ind g ha era Bih M ripu ra ssa ip e Jh rade de ta ta G ha sth ah rya la M ttar ash Ka j a i en R n ha or d hy ad ad kh kh an ra ra h P t a W M An un m Hi Ar See Volume 2, Annex 4 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.3.1 TSC financial Allocation and Expenditure TSC allocation and expenditure ­ national Under the TSC, the total commitment to date is approximately Rs. 17,866 crore (US$ 3,888 million), of which BPL households have committed Rs. 2,016 crore (US$ 438 million or 11.4 percent) (Figure 3.3). The allocation and expenditure is divided between the national government, state government and beneficiaries (BPL families). This is in addition to the additional expenditure by the BPL families5 and expenditure by the APL families, both of which are not captured by the online monitoring system of the TSC. figure 3.3: financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR, Crore) 17,886 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 11,094 INR/CRORES 12,000 10,000 7,369 8,000 4,776 4,155 6,000 2,203 2,016 4,000 1,011 2,000 Allocation - Expenditure Total Centre State Beneficiary See Volume 2, Annex 5 for calculations leading to this graph. 5 BPL families have to contribute about Rs. 300 (US$ 6.5) to avail of the government's support to construct a toilet; however, in practice, they may contribute a higher amount to construct a better quality of toilet. 35 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes TSC allocation and expenditure ­ per district, state wise The unit for implementation of the TSC is the district. On an average, the allocation for implementing the TSC is Rs. 30 crore (US$ 6.6 million) per district, ranging from Rs. 4 crore in Arunachal Pradesh to Rs. 73 crore in Andhra Pradesh (Figure 3.4). figure 3.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR, Crore) 80 ­ 73 70 ­ 60 ­ 52 50 INR/CRORES 50 ­ 44 38 38 40 ­ 37 32 31 30 31 30 26 30 ­ 25 23 19 18 20 ­ 15 15 12 11 11 11 9 10 ­ 7 5 5 4 4 0­ M desh Sik m kim ga oa Ha d M ana Hi Ut Pu ur d eg sh Ke a u Trip la Ka ura Gu mir ad Raja arat M ark u t B sa ac ak b Pr an rn sh a Ta Ass a m am Ch ara and Ut atti tra ra h W O sh ra Bih l Pr ar h ga lay ak di Jh ad r P ar es lan m tar nja l P an ra ra ip es ris M rade Ka ade de Na G h h sh en In ta sg sh ad at ry hy st ha h il N ah h ha j izo an ra lP a & ha dh ac m An un m M Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 6 for calculations leading to this graph. The TSC budget for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 7. TSC hardware allocation and expenditure ­ per district, state wise Splitting the average allocation by hardware and software at the district level shows that the average hardware allocation per district is Rs. 26 crore (US$ 5.7 million) while the expenditure is just over Rs. 11 crore (US$ 2.4 million) which is 42 percent (Figure 3.5). Only two or three states have been able to show consistency in using hardware funds; most others exhibit low absorption capacity. figure 3.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) 70 ­ 65 60 ­ 50 ­ 46 44 INR/CRORES 40 ­ 37 35 31 31 28 27 30 ­ 27 27 26 26 26 23 22 21 20 20 ­ 17 17 16 16 13 13 13 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 ­ 9 9 9 9 8 7 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0­ Ha and Hi U an b h S a Na ikkim Pu na ac ak ur d eg sh Ke a u Trip la Ka ura Gu mir hy ast t Pr han rn sh a ar ia il N d M A du Ch ara m Ut atti tra ra h W O sh t B sa ra Bih l Pr ar h ga ad Raj jara Go lay ak es r P ar es M nja l P an m n ra Jh Ind ah ssa es ris m ttr ip M rade Ka ade de rya Ta kha a h sh en ta sg sh d ad at l ha h ha ga ra lP a & ha dh ac m An un m M Ja Ar Hardware allocation per district Hardware expenditure per district See Volume 2, Annex 8 for calculations leading to this graph. 36 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status TSC software allocation and expenditure ­ per district, state wise The average software allocation is Rs. 4 crore (US$ 0.7 million) with corresponding expenditure being recorded as just Rs. 1.1 crore (US$ 0.24 million) which translates into 32 percent against the average allocation (Figure 3.6). figure 3.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) 8.0 ­ 7.0 6.6 7.0 ­ 5.9 5.6 6.0 ­ 5.3 5.3 5.0 ­ 4.4 4.1 INR/CRORES 3.7 3.7 3.6 4.0 ­ 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.0 ­ 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.0 ­ 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 .9 1.0 ­ .8 .8 .7 .7 .6 .5 .5 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .3 .3 .4 0.0 ­ M desh Na oram d kh a Sik d Ha ipur Pu na Gu am jas a hy rad a M kim l P njab eg sh Tri ya Ka ra Ke ir As la il at rn u an Pr esh ar sh d Ch ara ar W ttis ra t B rh dh O gal Pr sa h ta Go Ra atak r P di Ka Nad es m lan an an ra & pu ah Bih ha sht jar ra ris es ga la M rade Jh ade rya th ta In en s sh ad kh ha an ga ra iz ra lP m a ha ha Ta Ut M u Ut ac ac ad m An un m m M Hi Ja Ar Average software allocation per district Average software expenditure per district See Volume 2, Annex 9 for calculations leading to this graph. TSC software allocation and expenditure ­ per household, state wise The average software allocation per household is Rs. 181 (US$ 4) per household while average software expenditure is Rs. 102 (US$ 2.5) (Figure 3.7). figure 3.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR) 2439 2500 ­ 2000 ­ 1500 ­ INR 950 816 1000 ­ 718 680 588 193 509 472 398 363 313 500 ­ 314 286 257 267 276 282 295 241 211 181 194 578 181 172 178 179 183 153 163 165 171 159 152 170 144 155 142 123 125 142 132 114 130 102 117 102 106 98 70 92 68 78 74 54 19 16 0­ ac tti ir Ut t B u dh Pra al Ut Prad sh ra esh jas d Gu ra m Pr m Ch Kas sh Tri an Ha arat M rna na ar ka ra In r Ja hy As a l P arh Or h ar issa Pu nd K b ga la d M Goa S ur ac gh im ra a M desh m a di l P ay m ha hm es ad s Ra han a lan An tar eng Na era pu ht Bih m a sa ra ip ra de & ade de ah ta th rya nj un Me ikk a ha sg ha al W il N kh j izo an as ra k m Ka ta Jh Ta u ad M Hi Ar Software allocation per household Average expenditure household See Volume 2, Annex 10 for calculations leading to this graph. 37 INR INR 38 Hi m Pu ac 0­ 500 ­ 1,000 ­ 1,500 ­ 2,000 ­ 2,500 ­ 3,000 ­ 3,500 ­ 4,000 ­ 0­ 5,000 ­ 10,000 ­ 15,000 ­ 20,000 ­ 25,000 ­ 30,000 ­ n ha Pun jab l j 5,884 W Pra ab 156 es de M Go t B sh a a 6,020 e 341 Ka nip Ra nga rn ur 610 at 12,603 jas l a th Tri ka pu 12,991 Tri an 907 Ra pu jas ra 15,437 M r 912 th An ah Oris a Ut a dh a ar sa 947 An r ta Or n 15,492 ra sh iss Pr tra dh Pra a ra de 15,721 Ja m ad 1,012 m Ha esh Hi Pr sh ad 15,981 u 1,019 m es & rya K n ac h 1,081 M hal In 16,221 Ta ash a m m ad P dia hy ra 17,320 il ir 1,085 a de Ka Nad rn u Ja Ma Prad sh m 17,452 Ut ta ata 1,091 m har esh ra ka u 17,473 kh 1,123 & asht a Ka ra Gu nd 1,146 sh 18,443 Jh jar ar at Ar Gu mir 18,756 kh 1,155 un See Volume 2, Annex 11 for calculations leading to this graph. See Volume 2, Annex 12 for calculations leading to this graph. jar an ac a 1,171 19,020 BPL household toilets is Rs. 1,274 (US$ 28) (Figure 3.8). ha B t Ke d l P iha ra la 1,190 Ch ra r ha de 19,277 In di tti sh s 19,314 M a 1,274 M garh ad Mi Goa izo 19,407 hy zo 1,307 Jh ra a ra TSC hardware expenditure ­ per BPL household, state wise W arkh m 19,498 Ar Pr m ad 1,389 es an un es tB d 19,520 ac h 1,425 en ha Bih g lP ar 1,472 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 19,856 ra The average school toilet expenditure is Rs. 17,320 (US$ 384) (Figure 3.9). Ke al ra d l 20,078 As esh 1,491 Ta Ass a m am TSC hardware expenditure ­ per school sanitation facility, state wise N sa Ut il N 20,098 Ch aga m 1,563 ta ad ha lan ra tti d 1,590 figure 3.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR) kh u 20,148 sg Ha and Ut Ma arh 1,779 figure 3.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR) rya 20,202 ta ni n r P pu 1,889 Sik a 20,529 M rade r Na kim eg sh 20,979 ha 2,299 M gala la eg nd ha 23,949 Sik ya 2,301 lay kim a 25,888 3,338 The TSC provides financial support (post-construction incentives) for BPL households (APL households are mobilised to invest on their own to construct toilets). In this context, the average expenditure per INR INR Pu 0­ 5,000 ­ 10,000 ­ 15,000 ­ 20,000 ­ 25,000 ­ 30,000 ­ An n 0­ 50,000 ­ 1,00,000 ­ 1,50,000 ­ 2,00,000 ­ 2,50,000 ­ 3,00,000 ­ 3,50,000 ­ 4,00,000 ­ 4,50,000 ­ 5,00,000 ­ dh O jab M Go M ra ri 483 izo a 0 a s ra Ar dh Prad sa un ya 2,869 Pu m 0 es ac Pra h nj a ha d 3,030 Sik b 0 l e kim Ut Pra sh ta de 3,217 Or 0 ra sh is kh 3,398 Tri sa 13,590 an An pu Ke d 3,678 dh ra 20,135 ra ra Bih la Hi 4,209 W Pra ar 30,087 m Ra Go ac ja a es de ha st 4,293 Ut t Be sh 39,122 l P ha ta ng ra n 4,340 de M rakh al ah a 41,162 Ch Gu sh ar nd ha jar 4,523 as 41,480 h tti at sg 4,662 Gu tra 54,192 ar h jar at Ka Ind 4,682 54,599 rn ia Ka Ind rn ia at 4,684 at 64,854 Ut Ha aka a ta rya 4,736 76,401 r See Volume 2, Annex 14 for calculations leading to this graph. See Volume 2, Annex 13 for calculations leading to this graph. As ka M Pra na Jh sa ar m ah de 4,776 M kh 76,700 ar sh ad Raj and Ja as 4,791 hy ast 77,346 m Miz htra a m 4,811 Pr han 1,13,673 u ora ad Ka m es 4,815 Ta Ke h 1,18,003 Na shm g ir m ral 4,829 il N a 1,51,291 Jh alan ar kh d 4,921 Ha adu 1,54,946 a ry M a Tri nd pu 5,230 Ja Utt an na 1,56,029 figure 3.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR) m ar ip W A ra 5,342 figure 3.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR) Ar mu Pra ur 1,62,700 es ssa un & de tB m s en 5,489 2,13,931 TSC hardware expenditure ­ per RSM/Production Centre (PC), state wise Hi acha Kash h ga m Ta Bi l 5,600 ac l Pr mir 2,19,167 m ha ha ad i The expenditure on pre-school toilet (Aganwadi) is Rs. 4,684 (US$ 104) (Figure 3.10). Ch l Pr esh M l Na r 5,682 ha ad 2,19,600 eg du tti esh ha la 5,979 sh 2,62,000 Na gar Sik ya 6,447 h 2,70,273 M kim M gala eg nd an 9,615 2,84,000 ip The average district expenditure on setting up RSMs/PCs is Rs. 64,854 (US$ 1,141) (Figure 3.11). ha TSC hardware expenditure ­ per Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation facility, state wise lay ur 25,226 a 4,68,750 39 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes TSC expenditure on SLWM, state wise The average district expenditure on SLWM initiatives is Rs. 40,089 (US$ 890) (Figure 3.12). figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR) 1,494,333 16,00,000 ­ 14,00,000 ­ 12,00,000 ­ 10,00,000 ­ INR 535,429 8,00,000 ­ 6,00,000 ­ 280,948 148,750 4,00,000 ­ 126,367 81,207 40,089 46,458 39,359 36,591 32,588 27,301 34,784 27,098 35,091 33,756 2,00,000 ­ 20,841 4,921 3,236 7,003 6,644 8,739 6,032 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 ­ sh h a ga a W Tri ab M t Be ra Pu nd ar al tti am ac rn ra ra a jas h hy O n Ut rad a kh h ha Ass d rh m Ha ar Ka na an r at Ut ark ia ra d S la dh il m Gu ur Pr du M desh Ke h m M mi eg Go Na alay l P ak a riss Ra des a tra es s an rP n ah ng Jh Ind ra es pu m Ka sht Bih jar An Tam ikki ra ga ip de de th & rya nj la ta ha ra Na sh ha at izo sh ra a a lP P M ha u Ch ac ad un m M Hi Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 15 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.4 Outputs The outputs of the TSC in terms of toilets constructed in households, schools and pre-schools, and progress in terms of the number of RSMs set up and SLWM works undertaken is presented here. 3.4.1 Toilets Constructed in Households, Schools and Pre-schools Under TSC, more than 6.43 crore toilets have been constructed ­ 3.48 crore BPL toilets, and 2.95 crore APL toilets (Figure 3.13). figure 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative) 1,201.7 1,400 ­ 1,200 ­ 1,000 ­ 643.3 x100000 610.7 591.0 800 ­ 600 ­ 348.2 295.1 400 ­ 11.97 200 ­ 9.73 3.16 0.18 4.4 0.3 0­ IHHL IHHL IHHL School Pre-school Community Total BPL APL Toilets Toilets Toilets Target Progress 40 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status More than 5.5 crore household toilets still need to be constructed ­ 3.1 crore APL and 2.4 crore BPL. Currently, India, on an average, constructs 29,247 toilets per day. However, India needs to construct more than 76,498 household toilets per day in the next two years to achieve 100 percent coverage which means doubling its efforts (Figure 3.14). Construction of IHHL under TSC ­ current and required pace figure 3.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace - Current and Required 100%­ 0 0 RATE OF CONSTRUCTION PER DAY 103 2 87 90%­ 25 80%­ 757 70%­ 16 60%­ 50%­ 11,470 5,089 659 76,498 12,306 3,329 40%­ 3,109 5,459 2,520 627 5,914 4,085 6,155 3,479 30%­ 253 3,551 1,199 5,342 1,518 330 135 186 20%­ 29,247 2,138 1,288 1,429 1,300 3,106 2,324 1,989 1,099 6,125 1,826 10%­ 193 115 738 742 266 450 949 888 789 23 26 25 32 80 24 80 5 0%­ Sik la M kim m Tri a Ar ach Har ra ac Pr na ra h h eg nd Ut Man ya ra ur Pu nd u Gu b Ch Kas at Ta tisg ir W il N h tB u ar al As nd h n m dh Pra ka M Pra sh ar sh jas ra ta Or n ra a sh In r a a Go r P iss di l P es Na des m ar es ad ha hm a a ra Jh eng pu Ra sht Bih & jar ra M K sa ta ip la ra de ah de de An ya ata un al ya th nj M gala a a ha ad Ke kh kh ha izo a ad ar t Ut m m m Hi Ja Current construction capacity per day Constructioncapacityneededperdaytoreach100%coverageby2012 See Volume 2, Annex16 for calculations leading to this graph. Coverage of IHHL under TSC There has been 54 percent progress against the target for household sanitation ­ 59 percent among BPL households and 48 percent among APL households (Figure 3.15). figure 3.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC, by State 120 ­ 109 102 98 97 97 100 ­ 91 87 74 80 ­ 73 72 PERCENT 62 60 59 59 54 54 60 ­ 48 46 45 38 36 40 ­ 32 31 31 26 23 20 20 ­ 15 9 0­ Ta rad a Ka ipur l P am Or d tB u Bih r ar eg sh g a kh d Ch ajas sa tti n Ut rna rh ra ka d Pr dia Ut P esh M Pra ab W il N h dh ara sh l ac G a ra t Ha esh Tri na izo a Ke m kim Sik la ga i l P ra P tr Na alay Go M pur ha tha m es es ad m an Jh alan an ra ra is Ka sga M rade An ah de ta ta rya j ra sh ha uja en In ta un ha Ass sh ad d kh an h ar M R a r & hy u ac ad m un m m M Hi Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 17 for calculations leading to this graph. 41 PERCENT PERCENT 42 Ja m M m Nag u 0­ 20 ­ 40 ­ 60 ­ 80 ­ 100 ­ 120 ­ 140 ­ Ja 0­ 20 ­ 40 ­ 60 ­ 80 ­ 100 ­ 120 ­ m M anip & alan Ka d m eg ur u ha 7 6 & Jh shm ar Ka laya kh ir 7 Ar un sh 24 an m d ac ha Pu ir 24 Bih 9 l P nja M a ra b 24 an r 10 de ip sh Ar As ur 14 Bih 26 un sa ac m 14 A ar 27 ha Or Ra ssa l P iss ja m 28 Ch ra a 20 Na stha ha de 29 g n tti sh Jh alan 31 Ra sgar ar ja h 39 kh d 36 Ka stha an Coverage of BPL IHHL under TSC rn n Coverage of APL IHHL under TSC Or d 45 Ut ta ata 41 Ka is ra ka Ut rna sa 46 kh 44 ta ta an C ra ka W d 46 M hh kha 49 es Ind ad att nd U t B ia hy isg 51 M ttar en 48 a ad P ga Pr arh 50 ad 53 hy rad l a es Pr esh M h 57 51 An Me ade See Volume 2, Annex 19 for calculations leading to this graph. See Volume 2, Annex 20 for calculations leading to this graph. An ah Ind dh ara ia 59 dh gh sh ra ala 52 ra sh Ut Pr tra ta ad 60 M Pra ya ah de 54 figure 3.16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC r P es ar sh Ta rad h 64 as 58 m es ht ra 60 71 figure 3.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC Hi il N h Ta m m Go The IHHL coverage for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 18. ac G adu 80 Hi il N a 64 ha uj m l P ara ac G adu ra t 83 ha uja 65 de l P ra W sh ra t 90 86 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes es G d Ha esh t B oa en 90 rya 93 Ha ga rya l 92 Tri na pu 97 Tri na 96 Pu ra 97 M pur M njab izo a 97 izo 98 ra ra Ke m 97 Sik m 99 ra ki Sik la 99 Ke m 102 ra kim 113 la 128 PERCENT PERCENT M M eg eg 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 h h Na alay Na alay ga a 26 ga a 26 M lan 31 M lan 46 Hi W an d m es ip 31 Hi W an d m es ip 46 Ja ach t Be ur 49 Ja ach t Be ur 49 m al ng 9 m al ng m Pr a u l 51 m Pr a u l & ade 73 & ade 51 School toilet progress Ka sh sh 53 Ka sh 53 m 91 sh m Ut ir 55 Ut ir 55 ta Bih 15 ta Bih ra ar kh 55 ra ar kh 55 an 20 an d 59 d 59 Go 48 Go A a 61 A a 61 Ra ssam 74 Ra ssam jas 66 jas 66 Jh th 23 Jh th 78 IHHL progress ar an ar an kh kh 78 An an 38 An an dh d 80 dh d 80 ra Ind 32 ra Ind Pr ia 81 Pr ia Coverage of school sanitation under TSC Ar ad Ar ad 81 un es 54 un es ac 87 ac ha Or h 62 ha Or h 87 figure 3.18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC Ut l Pra issa 90 Ut l Pra issa 90 ta de 36 ta de See Volume 2, Annex 22 for calculations leading to this graph. rP s 90 See Volume 2, Annex 21 for calculations leading to this graph. rP s ra h de 26 ra h de 90 Tri sh 91 Tri sh 91 p 59 p M P ura 91 M P ura ah un 97 ah un 91 a ja a ja M Ta rash b 93 M Ta rash b 93 ad m tr 59 ad m tr hy il N a 94 hy il N a 94 a 60 a Pr adu Pr adu ad 94 ad 94 e 72 e Ch Har sh 95 Ch Har sh 95 Comparison of coverage of IHHL and school sanitation under TSC ha ya 54 ha ya 98 tti na tti na sg sg 98 ar 97 ar Ke h 98 Ke h 98 Ka ra 45 Ka ra rn la a 99 rn la a 102 99 M taka M taka izo 99 i zo 99 ra 46 ra 100 Sik m 98 Si k m 100 k k Gu im 100 Gu im 100 109 Figure 3.19 shows the coverage of school sanitation vis-ŕ-vis household sanitation coverage. jar jar at 108 at 108 87 figure 3.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC 43 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status Ja m m PERCENT 44 u & 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Ka sh M Goa izo 0 m ra ir 8 Go Sik m k 0 M Bih a 11 Ar P im 0 eg a un Me unj ha r 15 Ja ach gha ab 9 M laya m al la m Pr ya Ut an ta ip 15 u 11 ra ur & ade K s kh 16 a Hi Utt ash h 13 Pu nd 18 m ar m Jh nja ac ak ir 14 ha ha l P nd Hi W arkh b m es a 32 r 31 ac t B nd Na ade ha e 33 ga sh l P ng l 36 ra al 34 M and An d up across the country (Figure 3.21). Ra ip an 44 dh A esh 35 ja ur ra ss 57 Pr am a Ka stha 35 Ra des 68 Ch rna n Establishment of RSMs/PCs under TSC h t jas h 37 Ut atti aka Na tha ta sg 72 Ar ga n r P ar un lan 46 ra h 76 ac 61 figure 3.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target de ha In d s l P di Ke h 77 ra a M Tam ra 72 ad l de s See Volume 2, Annex 24 for calculations leading to this graph. See Volume 2, Annex 23 for calculations leading to this graph. hy il N a 88 Ut 73 figure 3.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC a ad ta Or h W Pra u 106 r P iss es de t B sh ra a d 76 en 122 Tri esh 79 As gal Ha pur An sa 152 dh m rya a 85 Coverage of Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation under TSC ra In 157 Ch K na 86 Pr dia ha er Jh ade 191 t al ar sh Ta tisg a m arh 86 kh 200 il N an 92 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes d a Bih 294 Gu du ar K jar 94 Or is 302 M arna at 95 ah ta M Gu sa 346 ar ka ah jar ar at M as 99 as h 371 ad Mi htra Ha tra hy zo a ram 100 rya 493 Pr ad 100 Tri na 936 Gu esh pu ra jar 122 1,842 at 122 The TSC has sanctioned 4,191 RSMs and 139 PCs; overall, 5,214 RSMs and 3,046 PCs have been set A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3.4.2 Progress in Undertaking SLWM Works The SLWM component has been initiated in only in 17,063 villages so far (Figure 3.22). figure 3.22: Number of villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up 17,063 18000 16000 WORK/RS TAKEN UP 14000 12000 10000 8000 3,223 6000 2,763 2,101 1,688 1,645 1,245 4000 842 699 652 548 312 385 2000 208 212 105 143 51 45 98 15 15 11 44 9 4 0 0 0 0 sh ga a Sik d m Mi kim K am ha r Pu ya M ab ur ra ar dh K nd Pr la W As sh m l u Tri d m Ka Oris a ac rn sa Ch l Pra ka tti sh jas h M Gu an ar at ad Ha htra Ut Pra na ra h sh a m ga eg mi Na Go r di Jh Nad Ra gar r P es lan an ra era ta Bih pu ah jar es sa ip la de e ha de de a th a nj a Ta Ben In r M ash ad ta d ha at hy ry kh kh u zo an as s ra il ar lP t a & ha Ut ac An un m M Hi Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 25 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.5 Process Process analysis explores the performance of the states' efficiency and priority which is measured against acceleration rate, inclusiveness and effectiveness of the scaling up coverage. 3.5.1 Acceleration Rate of Household Sanitation An acceleration rate scale has been developed to measure the extent of coverage achieved in a specified period of time. In this regard, the states have been ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 based on the IHHL coverage and the time taken to achieve that coverage. The following formula has been used to calculate this coverage: Household Sanitation Coverage Achieved under TSC X 10 Acceleration Rate Scale (0-10) = Average time taken* * The time taken by each district from the sanction date is averaged at state and country levels On the acceleration rate scale, India scores 5.1 in reaching the TSC target (Figure 3.23) while Himachal Pradesh stands out as the most efficient state in achieving the maximum acceleration. 45 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in Scaling Up Household Coverage 8.3 9 ACCELERATION RATE SCALE 8 7.1 7.0 6.6 7 6.2 5.7 5.6 6 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.5 5 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.7 4 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.5 3 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 2 1.4 1.0 1 0 M esh Ke ur Tri la ra a Ka ar Pu i r A b ga m ra t sh M land ra m Si k d ar im O d dh jas sa M Pra n M rash h Ka hala a rn ya ta In a M Wes rade a sh Ch Pra al t sh il N h Ha adu ac G ana l P ara Go eg tr ak i a s m ar m a an an ra rP d a ng pu & Bih Na ssa ta ora An Ra ris ip ah de ha de de ra th nj Jh k Ta tisg sh ad at ry kh kh ha uj an hy Be Ut iz Pr a ad t l ha u Ut ac m m un m Hi Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 26 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.5.2 Reaching the Poorest figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement 128 140 113 120 102 99 97 98 99 97 97 97 96 93 92 90 100 90 86 83 PERCENT 80 71 80 65 64 64 60 59 60 58 57 54 53 52 51 51 60 49 48 50 46 45 46 44 41 39 36 40 31 29 28 27 26 24 24 24 20 14 14 20 10 9 7 7 6 0 u ha r Ka laya Pu ir ra b sh A ar Ra ssam n ar nd d rn sa Ch rak ka ad tt nd Pr arh h dh ara ia Ut a P htra Ta Prad sh il N h ac G adu ra t t B oa Ha gal Tri na M pura m Sik la kim sh m eg u l P ara Na tha es m es m l P nja an ah Ind ra Bih ra Ka Oris M anip de e de ta ata es G rya Jh gala M ha ha en hy isg sh ad ta rad Ke kh ha uj izo s jas M a r & ha r Ut W M ac An un m m Hi Ja Ar APL IHHL progress BPL IHHL progress See Volume 2, Annex 27 for calculations leading to this graph. In most states, the ratio of the BPL and APL is about 1, indicating equal importance to both groups in mobilising their commitment for adoption of toilet facilities. However, some states have given more importance to BPL. States showing a ratio more than 1 have placed higher priority on BPL families. Overall, India has accorded higher priority to BPL household sanitation (Figure 3.25). 46 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement 7.0 6.2 6.0 4.8 5.0 3.6 RATIO 4.0 2.6 3.0 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 eg njab an a jas r ha Ker n l P ala ac G esh ra t M desh Ha ram M Tr na a a Pr r a Pr sh Si k h Ut rna m kh a Ta In d Ch mil dia Ut atti adu ra h sh tB a As al m a Ka ar k ir ga d d Ra ipu l P ra M lay ad ar ur ta tak es Go iss a es r P ar Jh shm an Na han lan g An hya sht & Bih Ka ki sa ra de de th rya ha uja en M ah ip ta sg d ad Or h N ha i zo Pu ra dh a ra ar M W u ac m un m m Hi Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 28 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.5.3 Reaching Backward and Drought Prone Regions A comparative analysis of household sanitation coverage and NGP coverage (against the number of total GPs) in backward and drought-prone regions has been carried out. The districts covered under the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) and Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) were analysed in comparison with non-BRGF and -DPAP districts (Figures 3.26, 3.27, 3.28 and 3.29). figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGf Districts and Non-BRGf Districts 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 95 94 100 89 89 88 85 86 80 84 83 82 75 76 74 71 80 72 72 72 71 71 71 69 70 PERCENT 68 68 67 66 66 66 65 63 62 62 59 59 58 57 54 60 52 47 46 38 36 33 33 40 22 20 0 tti ar Or rh l P issa jas h dh ark n Pr nd As sh eg m rn ya u Pu ka M Utta ashmb hy kh ir M Pra nd ar sh ra Ut Gu a t ga sh il N d M adu W ary ur ac t B a ra l Ke h izo a Sik m Tri im ra l P ga r P jara di m es an M ral Ra des An Jh tha s K ja m lan ha Bih ht pu sa ra a H ip Ka hala e ah de Na ade de a k ra ha a ha en & n In sg ad at an as ra r ad ra a M ha Ta ta Ch ac m un m Hi Ja Ar IHHL coverage in BRGF districts IHHL coverage in non-BRGF districts See Volume 2, Annex 29 for calculations leading to this graph. In the context of NGP coverage, the non-BRGF districts show better coverage but the BRGF districts in states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and Gujarat have better access comparatively. 47 Ar un PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 48 ac Ja ha m l m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Pr u As B ad & s Jh Ka am 0 ar ihar kh 22 M esh an 0 sh 1 a 33 3 M m 0 Ch O nd 35 M ipu i zo r 0 an ir ip 1 ha ris 39 ra 1 Ar Pu ur 0 Ar tt sa 35 Pu m 0 un nj 1 un R isga 45 Ra nj 7 ac a 0 a aja rh 54 Ja jas ab 0 ha Bi b 1 M cha sth 52 m th 1 l P ha 1 ad l P an 36 m a 0 ra r hy rad 59 u As n de 2 a & sa 3 s 0 Pr esh 0 Ka m 1 Or h 3 ad 60 1 Ra iss e Ka shm 1 65 rn ir 1 NGP coverage in DPAP districts A sh NGP coverage in BRGF districts Ut ja a ta sth 3 Ka ssa 65 at ak 1 Ch r Pra an 0 rn m 0 1 ha de 3 An Me ata 67 Or a iss 20 tti sh s 2 dh gh ka 58 Ut 1 M 3 67 ta Bi a 5 Average IHHL coverage in DPAP districts ra ala r P ha 6 0 2 ad M garh Pr ya hy izo Ja 68 ra r 5 m ad e An d 0 An a ra dh Pra m 0 m 63 dh Tr esh 2 5 u Pun sh & 68 ra ip 3 ra de u Ut Pra sh 7 Ka jab 0 Ch Pra ra 3 ta de 6 sh m 69 ha de 11 ra sh k 4 Ut ir 71 tt sh 4 Jh han 7 ta Ind 70 M Jh isga 8 ar kh d 6 ra ia kh 36 ad ar rh hy kh 6 a 8 a 74 a 1 T nd 5 Gu nd 65 P an 6 M ripu 9 N jar 75 Hi Utt rad d m ar es 9 6 See Volume 2, Annex 32 for calculations leading to this graph. See Volume 2, Annex 31 for calculations leading to this graph. See Volume 2, Annex 30 for calculations leading to this graph. eg ra 0 Ut ag at 83 ac ak h Hi m ha 9 ta ala 79 ha ha 7 ac H laya 0 rP n ra d 0 W l Pra nd 6 ha y ar 11 80 es de 8 l P an M des 73 8 0 t B sh ra a Ta an h 20 16 80 en NGP coverage in non-DPAP districts m ip NGP coverage in non-BRGF districts de s 24 W il N ur 0 ga 15 In h 16 es ad 81 M In l 42 di tB u eg dia Ta Guj a 5 e 86 h 15 m a 19 H ng 82 Na ala 18 W il N rat 17 Hi Ma ary al 64 Ta ga ya 16 es ad tB u 21 m h an ac ar 84 m la 7 20 ha ash a 0 M il N nd 16 90 ah a 73 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Ka eng 21 l P tr ar du rn al 25 ra a 62 16 figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGf Districts and Non-BRGf Districts figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts as de 94 h 22 Average IHHL coverage in non-DPAP districts Na atak 27 s M ga a 6 Ke h 87 Gu tra 21 ah la 29 M ra 96 j 34 ar nd 0 Ha arat 38 as 0 izo la ht 54 ra 99 rya n 14 r 20 Sik m 0 Ke a 51 Ke a 100 ra 57 k ra 12 0 Tri im 0 Si k l a 94 100 Sik la kim 86 pu ki m 85 0 ra 0 100 100 100 100 figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3.5.4 Success Rate in NGP Applications A comparison of the number of awards and the number of applications year wise provides the success rate of the applications (Figure 3.30). In total, only 40 percent of the applicants won the award. This may be due to a weak monitoring system at district and state levels. figure 3.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States 120 100 100 85 80 PERCENT 68 65 64 63 60 60 51 46 44 45 43 40 40 39 39 36 40 32 32 28 27 25 20 22 21 19 20 20 12 0 r P am jas sh M chal ripu t hy rad ra Ch Pra sh tti h h dh Pu ar Ha issa M ana ur m t B ia Ka al Jh Ass ir ar am l P nd ga sh M egh nd Ta rash a a rn u Ke a Sik la kim Gu an Ut rad b kh h Or d T ra y m tr ak ha des ar tra es Ka Nad m P a an m es Ind & eng ra Bih ip ah ala Ra ade e Na ade th ra nj ha kha M la ja ta or sg sh at ry an Ut Miz r r il ad P a a Ja W u ac a An un m Hi Ar See Volume 2, Annex 33 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.6 Outcomes The NGP provides a context for capturing the elimination of open defecation at the household level but also for assessing related sanitation issues at the community level. The receipt of NGP at the national level is a good indicator for measuring the achievement of total sanitation status. 3.6.1 Number of NGP Winners At the national level, 22,618 NGPs had been awarded by 2009. More than 22,443 GPs (Figure 3.31), 165 blocks, 10 districts, and one state have won the award so far. Sikkim is the first state to have achieved Nirmal status with 100 percent access to sanitation facilities in homes and institutions. figure 3.31: NGP GPs, by State 22,443 25,000 20,000 NO. OF NGPs 15,000 8,387 10,000 2,097 1,512 1,670 1,087 1,132 1,041 5,000 989 845 870 207 225 418 520 521 113 198 155 164 24 31 50 63 96 14 12 2 0 ac Ka ur ra ir As sh M sam Na oram eg nd Pu ya Tri ab Or ra Sik sa kim r Ut arkh an ac ak d Ch Pra nd tti h rn rh Ke ka a dh t B na M ttar rade l ad P sh Pr esh Gu sh M il N t ar du ra a U P ga Ra Biha m jara Ha ral di ha des lP m m tar an pu ht is un & nip Ka sga la de e a Jh sth An es rya nj M gala a ah a ra en In ha sh hy rad ad at ha h ha as iz Ar mu Ma ja l a Ta W m Hi Ja See Volume 2, Annex 34 for calculations leading to this graph. 49 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes States such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have received the maximum number of awards. The district-wise distribution of NGP awards is given in Volume 2, Annex 35. figure 3.32: NGP State-wise Status (%) 3.6.2 NGP Winners versus Total Number of GPs At the national level, the percent achievement of NGP is less than 10 percent against the total number of GPs. figure 3.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats 100.0 120 95.1 NGPCOVERAGE(%) 100 79.4 80 60 31.9 30.0 40 16.0 16.1 16.6 15.0 12.1 10.9 9.2 20 5.8 6.6 5.7 6.2 4.3 5.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 0 Ka pur Pu ir kim ha Ass b l P am Ut egh esh ra a jas h an An M Oris r sa Ch Pra am Ut ttis sh ra rh ad ar nd Pr and h Tri a Gu ura rn rat ac Ha aka Ta rade a M il N sh W aras u t B ra ga al Ke d Sik la a r P ay di l P an Ra des es d m a lan Na eng ra Bih es ht ta ga ha de th nj M Jh kha ah a Ka ja In ra or p sh ta al M rad ad i at ha ry hy kh an dh iz M m a & u ac m un m m Hi Ja Ar See Volume 2, Annex 36 for calculations leading to this graph. 50 A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3.7 Goal The TSC's goal is to eradicate the practice of open defecation in the rural areas of the country, which it plans to achieve in 2012. In addition, India is also committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target. This section looks at the performance of the states on achieving universal sanitation coverage (households) which would help in understanding the current status as well as the extent of progress expected in the future towards reaching the goal. To assess and project universal sanitation coverage, the analysis takes into account current cumulative coverage (based on projected household growth) and average growth rate of access to toilets for the last seven years across India and within states. 3.7.1 Progress towards Universal Sanitation Coverage Given the current and annual growth rate in coverage, India will attain complete coverage in individual household toilets by 2018 (Figure 3.34). figure 3.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household) Coverage (Year Wise) 2064 2070 2056 YEAR OF ACHIEVEMENT 2060 2046 2038 2050 2037 2029 2028 2040 2027 2024 2024 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2018 2030 2017 2017 2016 2016 2014 2013 2013 2012 2012 2012 2011 2011 2008 2020 2010 2000 1990 1980 M kkim Tri am ac Ha ra ra a sh W il N a tB u M Gu gal Ut ara arat d P tra ad Pr sh Pr esh h ia ra rh rn d M Or a h a ga ya jas d As an ar m Pu nd Ka b ir a ac Ma ihar ra r sh l P ipu l P an m al ak eg iss Go es ad es m Ka han Ra lan & nja ha Ind pu Jh sa ta ga Na ala de de M hra rade th a ta sh Ta Ker en r sh hy ad ad at ha ry B kh ah j izo ha n Ut ttis Si k An r a Ch u m un m m Hi Ja Ar Already Achieved By 2012 Beyond 2012 See Volume 2, Annex 37 for calculations leading to this graph. 51 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4. TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment This chapter presents the findings of this study under each component of the rating scale developed to assess district-level processes and outcomes on the TSC (cumulative and stand-alone) and analyses the linkages between this and the sample districts benchmarking score. To recap, the components of the rating scale and benchmarking indicators are presented in Figure 4.1. This chapter is structured as follows: · First,itpresentstheresultsofananalysisbetweendistrictcumulativescoreontheratingscaleand the benchmarking score to understand if these two factors are correlated and to what extent; and · Next,itanalysesdistrictperformanceoneachofthesixindividualdimensionsoftheratingscalein terms of their individual score and if this correlates with the overall performance as represented by the benchmarking score and the extent of correlation. Study findings from the sample districts on individual dimensions are also presented here. figure 4.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking Rating Measures Programme Benchmarking Measures Scale Processes & Outcomes Programme Results 1. Strategy for TSC 1. %TSCBudget Implementation Spent 2. Institutional 2. %Individual structure and Household Latrine Capacity Target Achieved 3. Programme 3. %School Approach to Sanitation Target Creating Achieved Demand and 4. Financial Efficiency Scaling Up 5. Average Population 4. Technology Covered by a GP Promotion and 6. Success Rate of Supply Chain NGP Applications 5. Financing and 7. No. of NGPs won Incentives 8. %ofNGP 6. Monitoring System Panchayats to Total No. of PRIs 52 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and Rating Scale (Cumulative) CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE ON RATING SCALE Component 1. Strategy for TSC Implementation 2. Institutional Structure and Capacity 3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain 5. Financing and Incentives 6. Monitoring System Sample Districts' Score 95 100 90 89 Mean = 59% 85 85 on the Rating Scale 83 83 81 78 80 73 67 58 58 55 60 PERCENT 40 33 40 28 27 27 18 15 20 10 0 Va r na d Jo h en at Gu al ika la Be lum Vi B rai an er M gar rip i a Su ola Sh uja a rd rsa an m a r Sik r Ko kim m t T ur sa Ko irpu u ur og Ha Rew d Ju lsa n m dh n Dh rh ya Ea hap m sa es p ga rit Ba Si ka Ak rg ru ika a im ku W ain tta ha gu Am l st Sr o Kolhapur o Sirisa 80 ­ Shimoga o o Bardhaman o Virudhanagar Benchmarking score percent o Valsad o East Sikkim 60 ­ o Rewa o Surguja Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% Bi-variate Correlation o Gumla o o West Tripura o Hamirpur Bikaner 40 ­ o Junagadh o Kottayam o Akola o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal 20 ­ o Srikakulum o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.436 Average rating o Amritsar scale=59% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Total rating scale percent Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .661**) In the sample districts, a strong positive correlation was found between district performance on the benchmarking model and rating scale. This means that districts that do well on six components required for scaling up and sustaining sanitation, also perform well in terms of TSC results which are captured by the benchmarking model, and vice versa. 53 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation 4.2.1 Correlation between District Strategy Score and Benchmarking Score STRATEGY FOR TSC IMPLEMENTATION Component 1. TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group 2. A well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists 3. TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments 4. Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels 5. TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit ­ community-level engagement, post-construction incentive, appropriate technology Sample Districts' Score 120 on the Rating Scale 100 100 100 Mean = 57% 95 95 100 90 90 80 80 80 70 60 60 PERCENT 60 50 40 40 30 20 20 20 20 15 20 0 0 0 Am dh Va ar Be lsad ku i m en at Gu al an a Bik gar Su er ain a Ak i W mir a t T pur a Sik a Ko kim im r tta a m ha a an ika ra r Sh apu dh ml M uj Ha ol ur Ea Rew Ko og rd irs pu n an s Dh Jorh lu ya Sr usa m ga rit ka rg rip a Ba S lh na g st Ju es ru Vi o Kolhapur o Sirisa Shimoga o o Bardhaman 80 ­ o Virudhanagar o Valsad Benchmarking score percent East Sikkim o 60 ­ o Surguja o Rewa Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% o Hamirpur Bi-variate Correlation o Gumla o o West Tripura Bikaner 40 ­ o Junagadh o Kottayam o Begusarai o Akola o Jorhat o Dhenkanal o Srikakulum o Mainpuri 20 ­ R Sq Linear = 0.436 o Amritsar Average strategy scale=57% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Strategy score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .660**). As can be seen from the graph above, in sample districts, there is a strong positive correlation between the performance on strategy for TSC implementation and TSC results as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, districts that have a well-defined strategy for TSC implementation perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa. 54 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.2.2 Study findings on Strategy for TSC Implementation Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation The TSC guidelines provide a broad framework within which states and districts have the flexibility to devise their own strategies for programme implementation depending on the socio-economic context, terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. A strategy can signal priorities, assign roles and responsibilities, and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. Ensuring the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up. figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for TSC Implementation (n=22) TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group TSC principles are Well defined strategy with goal, being adopted in the phasing, budgetary allocation right spirit and monitoring plan exists Strong political and administrative TSC implementation is being will to implement at different levels undertaken by related departments 4.2.2.1 TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the core group The TSC represents a departure from the way that conventional rural sanitation programmes are implemented. According to programme guidelines, the TSC seeks to be community-led and demand- driven rather than target-led and supply-driven. As can be seen from Figure 4.2, in 89 percent of the sample districts, senior district-level officials share this understanding of the TSC framework and principles. The core team is also aware of the participatory campaign mode in which the TSC is supposed to be implemented with significant involvement of GPs. In terms of the goal, the NGP features prominently with many districts aspiring to Nirmal status as a result of the TSC. 4.2.2.2 Well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists A strategy is required to implement the TSC as a people's campaign, prioritise implementation in terms of geographical areas, populations and resources, and design solutions for problems such as behaviour change to end open defecation and scarcity of water/space. However, in only half of the sample districts, despite the progress in developing a shared understanding of the TSC guidelines within the core team, there is a lack of needed strategy and planning to move from paper to the ground. In these districts, it is observed that the implementation tends to be target-driven and goals set by implementation agencies are not realistic, given the time and resources available. On the other 55 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes hands, in districts that have developed a well-defined strategy for implementation suited to their context, we find that this is highly correlated with positive results on the ground (Box 3). Box 3: Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim Traditionally, toilet usage has been a part of Sikkim's culture but many toilets used were unsafe or unimproved sanitation. Between 2002-07, the TSC project in East Sikkim focused on promoting safe sanitation facilities. As a result, the district achieved nearly 90 percent household toilet coverage. A visit by the Secretary, DDWS, proved instrumental in galvanising the state to achieve Nirmal status and this goal was also adopted at the district level. It was decided to focus the TSC programme to achieve Nirmal status in a mission mode. The key features of the district strategy included: · CommongoalofbecomingNirmal and thereby contributing to the state's vision of becoming the first Nirmal Rajya in the country; · Creatinganenablingenvironmentforachievementofthisgoalthroughsensitisationand orientation of all stakeholders involved in the programme; · Securingpoliticalandadministrativewilltoachievethisgoalatalladministrativelevels; · Flexibilityinmobilisationanddemandcreation,withGPstakingtheleadinimplementation; · Facilitatinglinkageswiththeopenmarketforsupplyofsanitaryproductsandservices;and · Regularmonitoringandreview. As far as results are concerned, all 45 GPs, based on information of district officials, have been awarded the NGP including the district. Sikkim became the first state in the Indian Union to win the NGP at the state level in 2008. 4.2.2.3 TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments In more than half of the sample districts, study findings show that there is scope to improve inter- departmental coordination. At the district level, the DWSM is the coordinating body for sanitation. Therefore, although the structures are largely in place, the use of this arrangement for coordinating implementation remains a challenge. This could be because the frequency of meetings varies across the sample districts, and even if meetings are held regularly, sanitation in some cases is the last agenda point as the DWSM is mainly focused on water supply. 4.2.2.4 Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels In 43 percent of the study districts, although the core team understands the TSC principles and programme framework, this vision is not uniformly shared at sub-district implementation levels. This factor may be responsible for the `patchwork' results visible in some districts in which certain blocks or GPs are able to achieve excellent results but the district is unable to scale up these pockets of excellence. 4.2.2.5 TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit ­ community level engagement, post-construction incentive, appropriate technology The study findings show that TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit in less than half of the sample districts visited. Based on interaction with stakeholders during the district visits, we find that there is a good understanding of TSC principles among the core team members at the district level. However, in some districts, these are not being transmitted through the different levels of implementation up to the village level. One factor underlying this could be the pressure to achieve short-term targets for monthly reporting which leads to a short-circuiting of the TSC principles. 56 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity 4.3.1 Correlation between District Institutional Structure and Capacity Score and Bench- marking Score II. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND CAPACITY Component 1. The nodal agency is functional and effective 2. A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at the district level and is effective 3. Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block levels (e.g., cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the programme effectively 4. The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments 5. Village-level institutions are set up and are effective Sample Districts' Score 120 100 100 100 Mean=62% on the Rating Scale 100 95 90 95 80 80 90 70 80 50 60 60 PERCENT 30 40 60 20 20 20 40 20 15 20 0 0 0 na r J h en at ku l m Gu d gu a Vi Ma rai an ri Bik ar Ak r Ko ola r W t Sik a t T kim Su ra a m a tta r m ha a an ika na Ju itsa e Sh pu Ko irpu Be ml g uj Ha Rew rd irs d dh pu lsa an ag u Dh orh lu ya m sa Ea imo ga Sr ka rg rip Ba S a Va ru in r lh Am s es o Kolhapur Sirisa o 80 ­ Shimoga o o Bardhaman o Virudhanagar Benchmarking score percent o Valsad East Sikkim o 60 ­ Surguja o o Rewa Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% o o Hamirpur Bi-variate Correlation o Gumla Bikaner o West Tripura 40 ­ o Junagadh Kottayam o o Akola o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal 20 ­ o Srikakulum o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.474 o Amritsar Averageinfrastructurescale=62% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Institutions score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .688**) As can be seen from the graph above, there is a strong positive correlation between the performance on institutional structure and capacity and performance on the TSC as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts that have an effective nodal agency, dedicated and well-staffed units for TSC at different implementation level and capacitated village-level institutions perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa. 57 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.3.2 Study findings on Institutional Structure and Capacity Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. To effectively scale up and sustain TSC outcomes, institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Institutional frameworks should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. Capacity refers to the availability of skilled human resources for TSC implementation, budgetary allocations to effectively implement programme activities, an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC, ability to monitor programme progress and make revisions as needed. figure 4.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and Capacity (n=22) Nodal agency is functional and effective A dedicated unit for TSC with Village level institutions adequate staff exists at district are set up and effective level and is effective Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and Nodal agency coordinates sub-block level (ex. cluster, GP, habitation) for effectively with other departments implementing the program effectively 4.3.2.1 Nodal agency is functional and effective In over two-thirds of study districts, a nodal agency for TSC implementation was found to be functional and effective. This was the norm except in cases where there was a recent shift in terms of the nodal agency at the state level. As a result of having recently taken over charge, district-level officials were not very well-informed regarding TSC implementation and progress. 4.3.2.2 A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective In over two-thirds of the study districts, it was found that a dedicated unit for the TSC was set up at the district level. Typically, the DWSM is the overarching policy-making body. Day-to-day operations are undertaken by a nodal officer supported by a TSC cell, as outlined in the Kolhapur example in Box 4. 58 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment Box 4: Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from Kolhapur At the district level, a DWSM has been set up as a policy-making body, with the Zila Parishad President as Chairperson, the CEO as Vice-Chairperson and line department heads as members. The District Water and Sanitation Committee (DWSC) is an executive body which reviews and provides implementation support. The CEO of the Zila Parishad is the Chairperson with the Deputy CEO as member secretary. Effectively, the work is coordinated from the CEO's office and committees or Missions are activated when there is a specific need to discuss issues across stakeholder segments. The Deputy CEO, Village Panchayat, coordinates day-to-day operations. A dedicated sanitation unit for TSC implementation has been set up at the district level. This consists of three consultants (for communications, social mobilisation and capacity building) and one retired officer (former Block Development Officer ­ BDO) on contract in addition to one supporting staff (data entry operator). At the block, the TSC is coordinated by the Taluka Panchayat Officer, assisted by an engineer. The BDO regularly reviews the programme and further undertakes regular monitoring visits. The TSC cell has the following responsibilities: · Prepareactionplansandmonitorprojectprogress; · CoordinateIECcampaign­onitsown,orthroughblocksandGPs; · Undertaketrainingoftrainersandcoordinatecascadeeventsatsub-districtlevels;and · Preparereportsonprojectprogressforthestate/centrallevel. 4.3.2.3 Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block level (for example, , cluster, GP habitation) for implementing the programme effectively In nearly half of the study districts, it was reported that adequate staff and capacity was not available at the block and sub-block level to implement the programme effectively. In some cases, this could be because of the remote location of these areas which makes these less attractive postings within the government system and also for professionals recruited from the open market. However, better performing districts have been able to address this issue by providing incentives to motivators based on outcome achievement such as ODF status. In some cases, it was also observed that motivators are provided with a monthly stipend, boarding and lodging during field visits and arrangement of a vehicle to enable them to travel to the field. 4.3.2.4 Nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments Effective inter-departmental coordination is observed in only half of the study sample districts. As mentioned earlier under the Strategy component, this seems to be the case despite the fact that structures for inter-departmental coordination are largely in place at the district level and it is their effective functioning at the field level that needs to be addressed (Box 5). 4.3.2.5 Village level institutions are set up and are effective The TSC envisages a significant role for village-level government in programme implementation and monitoring. Effective village-level institutions are reported to be found in 57 percent of the sample districts. Generally, GP members and the Village Water and Sanitation Committee take up activities 59 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Box 5: Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need In one of the districts visited for the study, it was found that, at the district level, line department representatives are included in the DWSC and, therefore, there is a structure in place for inter- departmental coordination. However, this coordination does not percolate down to the village level. A case in point is that the government is assisting in the construction of a house for BPL families under its housing programme. Although a toilet is part of the overall design of the house to be constructed under this programme, it was reported that concerned officials are not insisting on completion of toilet construction at the time of releasing the last instalment of funds to beneficiaries. This is the situation in spite of the fact that TSC programme activities are being implemented on a parallel track in the district with an emphasis on supporting toilet construction by BPL families. related to motivation and monitoring. Depending on the context, community-based organisations have also been involved in TSC programme implementation, for example, in villages where women's microcredit groups are functioning well, Self Help Group (SHG) members have been utilised by the GP for mobilising women, messaging, financing (in some cases) and monitoring. 4.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4.4.1 Correlation between District Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Score and Benchmarking Score APPROACH TO CREATING DEMAND AND SCALING UP Component 1. Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy 2. Implementation is phased 3. Demand creation depends on community mobilisation 4. Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised 5. Strategy is implemented at scale Sample Districts' Score on 120 the Rating Scale 100 100 100 100 100 Mean=52% 90 90 100 80 80 80 70 PERCENT 60 60 40 40 40 30 25 20 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 na ar Am dh Jo r en at Gu al ika la m gu d Bik rai Ba Trip r ha a M an Su uri a Sh ola Ha oga tta r Ko yam ur sa st wa kim sa e Ko irpu rd ur uj lsa n m es an ag Dh rh lu ap Sir m sa p ga rit Ea Re ka rg Ak Sik im ku Va ain an lh m dh Be t Ju Sr ru W Vi 60 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment o Kolhapur o Sirisa 80 ­ Bardhaman o o Shimoga o Virudhanagar Benchmarking score percent o Valsad o Rewa 60 ­ Surguja o o East Sikkim Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% Bi-variate Correlation o Gumla o Bikaner Hamirpur o o West Tripura 40 ­ o Junagadh Kottayam o o Akola o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal 20 ­ o Srikakulum o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.28 o Amritsar Averagedemandscale=52% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Demand score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (Pearson Correlation .529**) There is a positive correlation between the performance on approach to creating demand and scaling up and performance on the TSC as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts where implementation is phased and the approach is based on community mobilisation rather than upfront subsidy, perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa. 4.4.2 Study findings on Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up A programme approach consists of specific activities, their timing and sequence. The TSC guidelines advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives. Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity. figure 4.4: Study Districts Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up (n = 22) Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy Strategy is Implementation is implemented at scale phased Motivators are used to the Demand creation depends on optimal level and have incentives community mobilisation 61 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.4.2.1 Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy Traditionally, sanitation programmes in India have relied on subsidy to create `demand' for sanitation. By contrast, the TSC seeks to be based on social mobilisation and behaviour change to end open defecation. Instead of subsidy, the programme guidelines use the term incentive and this is only available for the poorest of the poor, namely BPL families. In addition, the incentive is supposed to be released post construction of a toilet and verification of its usage by the BPL family. Despite this, in half of the study districts, it is found that implementation does depend on upfront subsidy for toilet construction. This could be a reflection of several factors such as limited capacity to implement a more time-consuming approach based on social mobilisation and pressure to achieve short-term targets based on toilet construction or expenditure. 4.4.2.2 Implementation is phased Sanitation coverage in rural areas of India has been historically low as open defecation is a traditional behaviour. In this context, the TSC seeks to achieve universal rural sanitation coverage and district projects of three to five years' duration are sanctioned to this effect. Despite the scale of the sanitation challenge, phasing or prioritisation of implementation activities is reported in less than half of the sample districts visited. This emphasises the need to strengthen the capacity to plan and manage the TSC district projects. The example of Shimoga district in Box 6 demonstrates how some of the better performing districts tackle TSC implementation. Box 6: Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District The TSC programme was launched in Shimoga district of Karnataka in October 2005 but actual operations started the following year in October 2006. The district's prior experience with a literacy campaign indicated that sustaining a campaign or mission mode is possible for a short period only (one or two years), so after piloting the TSC in 2006, the programme was scaled up in phases as follows: · Year1­ProgressiveandinterestedGPstakenup(about30); · Year 2 ­ Focus on the four Malnadu Talukas (hilly regions) where hygiene habits were believed to be more progressive and outcomes could be achieved faster; and · Year3­CoverthebalanceGPs. At the time of undertaking the visit, 88 percent of the 260 GPs in the district had been awarded the NGP. The district is also on track to become completely ODF in 2010, two years ahead of the state goal of 2012. 4.4.2.3 Demand creation depends on community mobilisation In just over half of the districts visited, it was found that demand creation is underpinned by efforts to mobilise the community to switch from open defecation to using safe and hygienic toilets. Different districts have followed different approaches to community mobilisation. For instance, in some cases, districts have partnered with NGOs to facilitate this process at the village level; in others, the programme is implemented by PRI/block representatives and facilitated through motivators. Across the sample districts, various behaviour change communication techniques include folk theatre, public meetings, documentary films, television spots, radio jingles and house-to-house visits. In some districts, social mobilisation has been undertaken using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods based on the 62 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach through trained facilitators. Different messages have been used ­ health, dignity, convenience, privacy, pride, etc. Box 7 describes the programme approach to scaling up TSC adoption in Sirsa district. Box 7: Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation: A Case Study of Sirsa District In October 2007, Sirsa district, Haryana, drew up a strategy to implement the TSC as a time-bound mission, with the government facilitating the community to change its sanitation status. To this end, dedicated teams of motivators were created. Each team comprised eight to 10 members and was made responsible for five to six villages. The motivators were trained as swachhata sainiks through training programmes at the district level. The training included participatory tools and motivational songs to inspire the participants to spearhead the sanitation movement in the district. At the village level, the following steps were taken: · Step 1: Village visit by the motivators, reaching out to people from all walks and all ages, working with the community members to undertake a self-analysis of their present sanitation status; · Step 2: Motivating students and women to come forward and participate in the sanitation movement. Appeals to issues of shame, dignity, convenience and health costs to induce behaviour change were made. The major trigger seems to have been the realisation that open defecation was tantamount to community members consuming each other's faecal matter; and · Step3:FormationoftheSanitationCommittee(Swachhata Samiti) comprising natural leaders who were motivated to change the sanitation status of their village. In addition, innovative IEC techniques were used such as catchy slogans instead of traditional greetings (Jai Swachhata), rallies and processions, torch light processions, recognition and rewards, and inviting village leaders who had achieved ODF status to share their experiences with those who were in the process. Triggering was matched by dedicated follow-up. Motivators report visiting villages at 4 am and going along with the village Swachhata Samiti members to ensure that no one would defecate in the open. At the time of undertaking the visit, 277 out of 333 GPs in Sirsa had won the NGP and the remaining GPs are applying for the NGP. The district has declared itself completely ODF, making it one of the first to achieve this feat in India. 4.4.2.4 Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised In just over half the districts visited, it was found that motivators are being used efficiently. As social mobilisation is a time-consuming process, in many cases, it was reported that motivators were compensated on the basis of performance-linked incentives. These included payment of a small fee upon achievement of outputs such as toilet construction, followed by a lump sum upon achievement of community-wide ODF status. 4.4.2.5 Strategy is implemented at scale In 60 percent of the districts visited, it was found that the strategy was implemented at scale. Through the effective use of a demand-driven strategy that the motivators created, these districts have scaled up the programme across districts. The scaling up included the use of various mass media and interpersonal communication methods. Reaching the message to every village in the district through capacitated motivators was one of the keys to this scaling up. 63 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain 4.5.1 Correlation between District Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Score and Benchmarking Score TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN Component 1. Multiple technology options are promoted 2. Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable 3. Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe 4. Products and services sourced are easily available 5. Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction Sample Districts' Score 120 100 Mean=70% on the Rating Scale 95 90 90 100 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 70 70 80 PERCENT 60 60 60 60 60 60 50 60 40 40 20 20 0 la sa na a Va h Am sad W Bika r r r en ra Sr mo l ika ga Be ulum Su rai A a M kola m ri ur h at Ea ttay n st am Ko kim an r ar Sh ana sa ne dh apu Ju ew uj d Ha pu Ko ama m Dh ipu ag Ba Jorh Sir irp sa ga rit rg l Sik Gu ain R k gu lh k tT i rd es ru Vi o Kolhapur o Sirsa 80 ­ o Shimoga o Bardhaman Virudhanagar o Benchmarking score percent o Valsad o East Sikkim 60 ­ o Rewa o Surguja Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% o Gumla o Hamirpur West Tripura o Bikaner Bi-variate Correlation o Kottayam 40 ­ Junagadh o o Akola o Begusarai Dhenkanal o o Jorhat o Mainpuri 20 ­ o Srikakulum R Sq Linear = 0.009 Amritsar o Average technology scale=70% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Technology score (percent) Although the sample districts have largely performed well on this component as indicated by the mean rating scale score of 70 percent, it is not correlated with the performance on the TSC as captured by the benchmarking score. This is not to say that technology promotion and supply chain do not have a bearing on TSC progress. In fact, choice in technology promotion is integral to scaling up the TSC and safe technologies are essential if programme results are to be sustained. The lack of correlation may be due to the supply-driven approach for BPL toilets adopted by most districts in which the district decides the technology. 64 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.5.2 Study findings on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain The TSC guidelines advocate informed technology choice and setting up of alternate supply channels such as RSMs. At the implementation level, technology promotion includes not just separate toilet components (for example, sanitary pans, pipes, traps, etc.) but also existing latrine technology options (for example, septic tank, ventilated double pit toilet, eco-sanitation). It also includes provision of masonry services for installation, and sanitary services for operation, maintenance and final disposal. figure 4.5: Study Districts' Average Performance on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain (n=22) Multiple technology options are promoted Well qualified trained Technology choices respond to masons are available community preferences and for construction are affordable Products and services Technology choices promoted sourced are easily available and adopted are safe 4.5.2.1 Multiple technology options are promoted Selection of sanitation technology options must take into account technical and demand factors. Technical factors relate to physical parameters, for example, terrain, soil permeability, ground water table level, availability of space and risk of flooding. By contrast, demand factors relate to customs and socio-economic conditions and are crucial to the acceptance of, and willingness to invest in, a sanitation option. Examples of demand factors include affordability, hygiene behaviours (for example, material used for cleansing), and preparedness for maintenance and emptying. Despite the importance of informed technology choice, assessment findings show that efforts to promote multiple technology options are a reality in less than one-third of the sample districts (Figure 4.6). This may be because a single model of technology is promoted which need to be adapted to fit within the TSC cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families. Study findings show that where users have not been sufficiently involved in choosing the technology, they are reluctant to break the habit of open defecation and use toilets. This has led to poor quality and/or incomplete construction (for example, missing doors, reduced height of walls, no lining in pits). In some cases, the constructed toilets are being used for storage or after covering the pan, the toilet is used for bathing and washing. In contrast, there are no such cost norms for construction of toilets for APL families and, in this case, users are free to adopt any technology that they choose. 65 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes figure 4.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22) 64 70 60 50 40 PERCENT 30 27 20 10 9 0 Single model of Informed Limited choice technology is technology in technology promoted choice is promoted options is promoted 4.5.2.2 Technology choices promoted are affordable and respond to community preferences In a majority of districts, the focus is on affordable technology, particularly for BPL families. The model promoted is adapted to fit within the cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families rather than user preference. For example, in one district, it was found that most of the toilets constructed were single pit model with a pour-flush pan. However, due to scarcity of water, users are removing the water seal trap to convert the toilet into a pit toilet, which constitutes unimproved sanitation. However, in the case of APL families, it is found that they are free to construct toilets of their choice and there is generally no effort made by the district to influence their preference. 4.5.2.3 Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe Study findings show that, in all the sample districts, technology choices promoted are safe. However, due to a lack of awareness about technology aspects and their implications for safe sanitation, in very few cases, users have made modifications to the promoted design. One finding emerging from this study is the prevalence of a popular myth concerning the depth of a pit or dimensions of a tank to be dug for a durable toilet. It was found that people generally believe that a pit or tank should be as wide or deep as possible so that it does not get filled up quickly. As a result, in some areas, toilet pits are known as kuiya or small well because they can be as deep as 25-40 feet. In others, septic tanks are constructed such that they would not get filled over a life time of use by a family of five members. 4.5.2.4 Sanitary products and services are easily available In nearly all the sample districts, there were no reported bottlenecks in the availability of sanitary products and services. In terms of the supply chain, three different models are found to be in operation: direct purchase from the private market, government sponsored procurement from the private market, and RSMs. These models are not mutually exclusive and are generally found to co- exist, although the first, private supply, is the most prevalent and clearly has the largest market share. Government sponsored procurement from the private market adopts a piece-meal approach and is focused on a particular product such as the `rural pan' (a pan with a steep slope to minimise water use) in districts that report water scarcity, or the pre-fabricated superstructure (for example, metal shed) and sub-structure (for example, concrete rings). In the case of government-led procurement, the cost of the products procured is deducted from the BPL incentive amount. With respect to RSMs, 66 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment the experience has been mixed. In most cases, RSMs were reported to cater to a very small segment as buyers were free to purchase from the private market. As a result, many RSMs became ineffective, and issues such as unrealised payment and unsold stock were reported. In a few districts, however, RSMs have evolved into a sustainable alternative delivery system for sanitary products and services (Box 8). Box 8: An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience In Bardhaman district of West Bengal, RSMs are the cornerstone of the district strategy to promote rural sanitation. The operation of RSMs is undertaken by NGOs and the RSM network combines supply of sanitation products with extensive social marketing. Fundamental to the success of the RSM is the support network of motivators. They campaign door to door to create awareness about sanitation and generate demand, manifest in the beneficiary contribution for construction of a toilet as per the TSC cost norms. Once a household has agreed to have a toilet, all the hardware items are delivered to the household and a trained mason installs the toilet including digging of the pit. In terms of performance, Bardhaman district report 100 percent household latrine coverage and 137 out of 277 GPs have won the NGP to date. 4.5.2.5 Well-qualified and trained masons are available for toilet construction In nearly all the sample districts, there were no problems reported in terms of availability of masons for toilet construction. In some districts, there were training programmes being conducted for the local masons while, in other districts, there was no specific training. In the districts where training was conducted, there has been no issue with the quality of the toilets constructed. However, in other districts, where there has been no training, the masons, who are civil workers with no proper training, have constructed less than perfect toilets, which can contaminate the environment. 4.6 Component 5: financing and Incentives 4.6.1 Correlation between District financing and Incentives Score and Benchmarking Score FINANCING AND INCENTIVES Component 1. Additional instalments are asked for on time 2. There are no funding bottlenecks 3. Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability) 4. Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads namely SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used) 5. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally Sample Districts' Score 150 Mean=62% on the Rating Scale 125 100 100 90 90 100 80 80 80 80 80 PERCENT 80 70 70 70 75 60 50 40 40 50 30 30 20 20 25 0 0 Jo r en at gu l ku i Ju lum M adh Gu ri Va la Bik d A r m la Vi ott ur dh am Ko gar Sh ur a tT a Ea urg a Sik a kim ha a an Be ana ika ra sa e og es Sirs S ur st uj rd w pu lsa m Ha ko an Dh rh K irp ap Sr sa m rit Ba Re ru ay rip a g im ain k an lh Am na W 67 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes o Kolhapur o Sirisa 80 ­ Shimoga o o Bardhaman o Virudhanagar Benchmarking score percent o Valsad o East Sikkim 60 ­ Surguja o o Rewa Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% Bi-variate Correlation o Hamirpur Gumla o Bikaner o o West Tripura 40 ­ Junagadh o o Kottayam o Akola o Begusarai o Dhenkanal o Jorhat 20 ­ Srikakulum o o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.649 o Amritsar Average finance scale=62% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Finance score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .806**) There is a very strong positive correlation between the performance on financing and incentives and sample districts' benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts where the fund flow is smooth and funding is used efficiently along with incentives for optimal performance, perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa. 4.6.2 Study findings on financing and Incentives Component 5: financing and Incentives Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. This includes costs of activities under different programme components (for example, school sanitation and hygiene education, administration, etc.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated, released and spent. Incentives can be financial or non-financial, given upfront or post achievement. figure 4.7: Study Districts' Average Performance on financing and Incentives (n=22) Additional installments are asked on time Incentives are available There are no funding for various stakeholders bottlenecks to perform optimally Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all Funding is used efficiently (focus on heads, namely, SLWM, IEC, etc. both short-term achievement and are being used) long-term sustainability) 68 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.6.2.1 Additional instalments are asked for on time Over four-fifths of districts studied reported that additional instalments of TSC funds were requested on time. This indicates that, on average, the project financial flows are smooth. 4.6.2.2 There are no funding bottlenecks The TSC and NGP provide ample resources for rural sanitation. Of this, a percentage of funding is earmarked for software expenditure, and the rest for hardware and cash incentives to BPL families. A majority of the districts indicated that there was no shortage of funding for implementing programme activities. 4.6.2.3 Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability In a majority of districts, 57 percent of the funding is being used for both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability of outcomes achieved after the programme is completed. Funds are used for software activities, for motivating the people and in the construction of toilets as well as for SLWM activities and sustainability of the initiatives. 4.6.2.4 Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads, namely, SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used) In less than half of the study districts, there is a mismatch between the TSC allocation and capacity to absorb and spend the funds. Many districts reported having unused balances under the programme. This can partially be attributed to the fact that certain programme components, such as SLWM, are relatively new and there is limited capacity to undertake interventions in this area as yet. 4.6.2.5 Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally The national-level TSC guidelines provide incentives for BPL families to construct and use toilets. In addition, the NGP is an incentive for PRIs to achieve TSC goals. Over and above these national-level mandates, in just over half of the districts visited, it was found that incentives have been made available for stakeholders at different levels of the implementation chain as well. Incentives take the form of a cash amount, for example, in Jorhat district in Assam, the motivator gets 10 percent of the household contribution towards toilet construction as a reward for effective motivation. Several districts also reported public recognition and felicitation being instituted as an incentive for exemplary performance. 69 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.7 Component 6: Monitoring 4.7.1 Correlation between District Monitoring Score and Benchmarking Score MONITORING Component 1. Monitoring systems are available at the village level 2. Monitoring systems exists for block and district levels 3. Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately 4. Monitoring for toilet usage exists 5. Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly Sample Districts' Score 120 on the Rating Scale Mean=53% 100 100 100 90 85 80 80 80 70 70 70 PERCENT 60 60 60 60 50 40 40 30 30 40 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 Am dh Va ar Gu d Jo la g at ku i Bik m en er ru inp l W han ri t T ar ha ra Sh man Su ga Ak a a sa Ea lha a Si r Ko kkim Ha yam ur ika ra M ana st pu uj ol Ko ew u lsa m an s rh es ag Ba ripu lu Sir irp Sr usa o ga rit rg im R tta k m na a rd Be Ju Dh d Vi o Kolhapur o Sirisa 80 ­ Bardhaman o o Shimoga o Virudhanagar Benchmarking score percent o Valsad o East Sikkim 60 ­ Surguja o o Rewa Averagebenchmarkingscore=52% Bi-variate Correlation o Hamirpur Gumla o o Bikaner o West Tripura 40 ­ o Junagadh o Kottayam o Akola o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal 20 ­ Srikakulum o o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.295 o Amritsar Average monitoring scale=53% 0­ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Monitoring score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .543** There is a positive correlation between the performance on monitoring and sample districts' benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts with an effective monitoring system are more likely to perform well on the TSC 70 TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.7.2 Study findings on Monitoring Component 6: Monitoring Large-scale sanitation programmes such as the TSC require an efficient monitoring system and ability to ensure that the results of monitoring are used to improve programme implementation. Monitoring should be done by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring should be collected from all levels, starting with the lowest. figure 4.8: Study Districts' Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22) Monitoring systems are available at village level Monitoring of Monitoring systems NGP/ODF villages is exist for block and undertaken regularly district level Monitoring systems tracks both BPL Monitoring for usage exists and APL coverage accurately 4.7.2.1 Monitoring systems are available at the village level In a majority of the sample districts, a monitoring system to track progress on sanitation exists at the village level. The responsibility for monitoring at this level rests with the GP-level functionaries, for example, Gram Sewak, Panchayat Secretary or motivators. Monitoring is done on indicators prescribed by the Government of India such as construction of toilets by different categories of households, construction of school and Anganwadi toilets, etc. (Box 9). Box 9: Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District Meticulous monitoring has played a key role in the successful scaling up of the TSC in Sirsa district, Haryana. Over and above meeting the TSC monitoring system requirements, a community-led monitoring system consisting of Nigrani (monitoring) Committees was developed at the village level to track the progress towards total sanitation and check slippages. Members of the Nigrani Committee were natural leaders of the community who came forward and volunteered for the cause of sanitation. As proof of their commitment, the members of the Nigrani Committee would wake up at 4 am and undertake visits to areas traditionally used for open defecation, armed with whistles and torches. These checks by the Nigrani Committee helped to facilitate the process of habit formation to end open defecation and switch to using toilets. 71 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.7.2.2 Monitoring systems exist at block and district levels In a majority of sample districts, the data on sanitation progress are collected by village-level functionaries and transmitted to the block level for review. From the block level, it is sent to the district level and consolidated at the monthly review in the district and entered into the district Monthly Progress Report (MPR) with a copy to the state-level nodal department. The reporting covers the achievement of the current reporting period as well as the cumulative achievement to date. 4.7.2.3 Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately In nearly half of the sample districts, it was found that the monitoring system for TSC tracks and reports both APL and BPL toilet coverage accurately. 4.7.2.4 Monitoring for toilet usage exists Tracking usage of toilets constructed emerges as one of the weakest links of the TSC monitoring system in the sample districts studied. Toilet usage is monitored by only one-third of the sample districts, of which around half reported undertaking this activity on an ad hoc basis, for example, during a village visit by a block-level official, rather than routinely. figure 4.9: finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22) 70 59 60 50 PERCENT 40 30 22 19 20 10 0 No Yes, on a Yes, on an routine basis ad hoc basis 4.7.2.5 Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly Monitoring of NGP winners is reported by even less than one-third of the sample districts. This could be because the NGP is a one-time award and therefore repeat checks on whether the NGP status is being sustained are not undertaken. However, Rewa district in Madhya Pradesh has introduced an innovative incentive/monitoring programme which provides an example of one of the ways in which NGP status can be sustained (Box 10). Box 10: Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachh Puraskar Rewa district, Madhya Pradesh, initiated Swachh Gram Puruskar in 2009 at the district level to award one GP from each block which follows demand-driven principles and sustains ODF status. The award (Rs. 50,000) is presented based on scores given in the peer review process led by sub-division-level officers. The scope of the award is limited to those GPs that have applied for NGP. 72 5. Summary and Recommendations 5.1 Summary As mentioned at the outset, to achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat within the TSC timeframe, there is need for a clear understanding of the present achievements, the processes that underpin scaling up, replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. Although there has been an undeniable upward trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage over the last decade of the TSC, national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals. Therefore, it is an opportune time to assess the present status, the progress towards full coverage and the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state and district levels. 1. National coverage has significantly scaled up to about 60 percent till March 2010. However, there have been significant differences in the coverage between the states. While one state, Sikkim, has declared itself ODF, some others have a coverage of less than 30 percent. 2. In absolute terms, approximately five crore toilets need to be constructed. At the present rate, significant acceleration is required in some states to meet the goal of ODF India by 2012. 3. At the present rate of coverage, it is expected that ODF India will be reached only by 2018 at the national level, but will take another half a century in states that are lagging behind. 4. The processes adopted by the district have a direct bearing on the outcomes achieved. In the study undertaken as part of this documentation, 22 districts across 21 states were selected. The processes by which TSC is implemented were divided into six components ­ strategy, institutional structure, approach to demand creation and scaling up, technology promotion and supply chain, financing and incentives, and monitoring. These processes were analysed qualitatively using a research protocol. These qualitative findings were converted into quantitative scores using the rating scale. Study findings show that good performance in terms of programme outcomes, as measured by the benchmarking score, are positively correlated with processes adopted to implement the programme as measured by the rating scale. This means that districts that adopt the right processes are more likely to perform better on the programme. 5. Study findings show that better performing districts are not doing different things but are doing things differently within the TSC framework. As detailed, better performing districts use the opportunities for flexibility available within the guidelines to adapt implementation to their field realities and learn from successes and mistakes to scale up the programme. 5.2 Recommendations The key outcome expected of the TSC and the NGP is that GPs that have achieved total sanitation status should sustain it over the long term. On the basis of analysis of the secondary data (TSC MIS) and rapid assessment in the 22 districts, the following recommendations are made for improvement: Focus on Processes A scaling up of the achievement of total sanitation in the villages requires the adoption of sound processes. In addition, sustainability of the change in behaviour is only assured if the corresponding 73 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes processes are sound. This is especially true in a behaviour change approach as in sanitation where participatory processes are essential for communities to understand and adopt change. As the study has shown, there is a direct correlation between the processes and outcomes. To achieve scale and sustainability, it is therefore essential for districts to understand and adopt the processes in the true spirit. The six components on the basis of which processes have been analysed represent an agenda for action. The districts could look at their processes vis-ŕ-vis this template, and identify gaps which need addressing and weaknesses which require strengthening. This focus on processes, rather than short-term physical target achievement, can drive scaling up and sustainability of the TSC programme, now and post 2012. Monitoring Sustainability The achievement of any output and outcome is often driven by what is being monitored. The present monitoring system of the TSC focuses on inputs and outputs achieved in the short term rather than the processes by which these are achieved. The NGP monitoring system focuses exclusively and separately on outcomes, making the linkage with inputs and outputs difficult. Even in the NGP, the focus is on current outcomes rather than sustainability. It is, therefore, important to include in the monitoring system: · Processindicatorsfortrackingonaregularbasistoensurethattheprocessesarebeingfollowed by the districts; and · Indicatorswhichtracklong-termsustainabilityoftheoutcomes.Thismayinclude,forexample, sustainability of the NGP-winning GPs, to ensure that there are no slippages. 74 References Bruijne, G. et. al., 2007. Sanitation for All? Thematic Overview Paper 20. Netherlands: International Water and Sanitation Centre. Government of India, 2004. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development. Government of India, 2007. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development Government of India, 2008. Sustaining the Sanitation Revolution. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development. Guerrant, R.L., Schorling, J.B., McAuliffe, J.F., and de Souza, M.A., 1992. Diarrhoea as a cause and an effect of malnutrition: diarrhoea prevents catch-up growth and malnutrition increases diarrhoea frequency and duration. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 47: pp 28­35. Hutton, G., Haller, L. and Bartram, J., 2007. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. Journal of Water and Health, 5 (4): pp 481­502. Murray, C.J. and Lopez, A.D., 1997. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global burden of disease study. Lancet, 349 (9063): pp 1436-42. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2001. Census of India. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. TARU, 2008. Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats. New Delhi: The Action Research Unit. WaterAid, 2005. Drinking Water and Sanitation Status in India: Coverage, Financing and Emerging Concerns. New Delhi: WaterAid. WaterAid, 2006. Dying for the Toilet. United Kingdom: WaterAid. WaterAid, 2008. Tackling the Silent Killer: the Case for Sanitation. New Delhi: WaterAid. RGNDWM, 2005. Nirmal Gram Puraskar: a National Award under Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission. WaterAid, 2006. Total Sanitation in South Asia: the Challenges Ahead. London: WaterAid, Discussion Paper. WSP, 2007. An Approach that Works: Community Led Total Sanitation in Rural Areas. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank. WSP , 2006. Study of Best Practices in Rural Sanitation in India: Working towards an Open Defecation Free Rural India. Draft Report prepared for WSP. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank. World Bank, 2004. India Burden of Disease Statistics. Available at http://genderstats.worldbank.org/ hnpstats/files/BOD4.xls. Accessed in March 2010. 75 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants Government of India Ms. Agatha Sangma, Minister of State Mr. Anjani Kumar, DEO Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Drinking Water Supply, 195 Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001 Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Tel: 011-23383614 New Delhi 110 003 Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Secretary Mrs. Urvashi Prasad, Consultant Department of Drinking Water Supply, Department of Drinking Water Supply. Ministry of Rural Development, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Government of India, New Delhi 110 003 Room No. 247, A Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 Mr. J. A. Usmani, Consultant Tel: 011-23061245 Department of Drinking Water Supply, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Mr. J.S. Mathur, Joint Secretary New Delhi 110 003 Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, Ms. Jasmin Shah, Consultant Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Department of Drinking Water Supply, New Delhi 110 003 Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Tel: 011-24362705 New Delhi 110 003 Mobile: 9868358024 Mr. vijay Mittal, Director Department of Drinking Water Supply, Mr. Kamal Mazumdar, Asstt. Advisor Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Drinking Water Supply, Paryavaran Bhavan, B-1 Block, 8-9th Floor Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003 New Delhi 110003 Tel: 011-24362106 Tel: 011-24364427 Mr. Raja Sekharan, Asstt. Advisor Mr. Bharat Lal, Director Department of Drinking Water Supply, RGNDWM, Department of Drinking Water Supply, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, 8th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi 110 003 CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24362106 Tel: 011-24360102 Andhra Pradesh Mr. Rish Kumar Kaushik Under Secretary, Department of Mr. S.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Project Director, SWSW Drinking Water Supply, SWSMHRD building, SRTGN Bhawan, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, PR Engg, Building Complex, New Delhi -110 003 Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad Tel: 011-24362106 Tel: 040-23310669 76 National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants Arunachal Pradesh Mr. M.A. Khan, Engineer-in-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Mr. A.N. Singh, Executive Director Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Communication and Capacity Development Unit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department, Tel: 0771-2331368, 2425354 Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh Tel: 0360-2214057 Mr. H.K. Hingorani Chief Engineer, Mr. Geyum Padu, Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Communication and Capacity Development Unit, Bilaspur Zone, Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh Tel: 094250-22311 Tel: 0360-2214057 Mr. J.K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer Assam Public Health Engineering Department, Durg, Circle, in front of Science College, Mr. Annada Prasad Sarmah, Executive Engineer Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001 Public Health Engineering Department, Tel: 0788-2331060 Mangoldoi Phed, Distt. Darrang, Assam Mr. A.K. Sahu, Executive Engineer Tel: 03713-222199 Public Health Engineering Project, Division Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Mr. Bidhan Chandra Dey, Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department, Tel: 0788-2293560 Golaghat Division Distt. Golaghat, Innaki Nagar, Mr. Sudhir K Agrawal, Special Secretary Assam 785 621 Public Health Engineer Department, Tel: 03774-284763 145 DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Bihar Tel: 0777-2583126 Mohd M. Sadullah Jawaid, Director-PMU Gujarat BSWSM, PHED, Vishweshwaraiya, Mr. S. R. Desai, District Project Coordinator Patna, Bihar Department of Rural Development Agency, Tel: 0612-2545705, 2545031 Multi Storey Bldg. 5th Floor, C-Block, Nandura, Surat, Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, Executive Engineer Gujarat 395 001 PHED, PH Division, Hajipur, Tel: 0261-2465723 Vaishali, Bihar Tel: 06224-260320 Haryana Chhattisgarh Ms. Sumedha Kataria, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Special Secretary Department of Rural Development Agency, PHED, Mantralaya, DKS Bhavan, Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Haryana 138 116 Tel: 0771-2331368, 2425354 Tel: 01744-220756 77 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Mr. Puran Singh Yadav, State Project Mr. H. Chittaranjan, Coordinator, TSC Chief Executive Officer Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department, Bangalore Zila Parishad (Rural), Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat Opp Sagar Theatre, K G Road Chandigarh, Haryana Bangalore 560 009 Tel: 0172-2711758 Kerala Himachal Pradesh Mr. A. Stanly, Director (Operations) Mr. Robin George, TSC Coordinator Suchitwa Mission, Local Self Government Rural Development Department, Department, Block No. 27 Kusumpti, Shimla Panavila Junction, Thycand, Tel: 0177-2622302 P.O. Trivandrum, Kerala Tel: 0471-2325730 Mr. S. M. Saini, Project Officer Department of Rural Development Agency, Madhya Pradesh Solan, Himachal Pradesh Tel: 01792-223915 Mr. Sudharshan Kumar Soni, Deputy Commissioner Jharkhand Rural Development, 2nd Floor, Vindyachal Bhawan, Dr. Niraj Kumar, Director Bhopal 462 016 SATHEE, Tel: 0755-2572993 Chitragupta Colony, Distt. Goldda, Jharkhand 814 133 Mr. Ashish Kumar, Chief Executive Officer Tel: 09431735586 Zila Panchayat, Civil Lines, Satna 485 001 Mr. M. Thanvir Akhtar, Superintending Engineer Tel: 07672-225449 DW&S, Ranchi Circle, Road No.8, Risaldar Nagar, Maharashtra Dhurwa Ranchi Circle, Jharkhand Tel: 9431422165 Mr. Nipun vinayak, Deputy Secretary & Project Director Karnataka WSSD, 149A, FF, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 Dr. P. Boregowda, Director & Addl. Secreatry Tel: 022-22023338 Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, KHB Complex, E Block, Mr. Sudhakar Shinde, State Coordinator Caveri Bhawan, K G Road, CCDU, Sidco Bhavan, Belapur, Bangalore 560 009 Navi Mumbai Tel: 080-22240508 Tel: 022-27565087 Dr. Manjula, Chief Executive Officer Mr. M. S. Kalshetti, Deputy Secretary Zila Panchayat, RDO, Maharashtra, Next District Court, Boulevard Road. 161 FF Main Building, Mysore, Karnataka Mantralaya, Mumbai Tel: 0821-2330316 Tel: 022-22846893, 22831017 78 National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants Manipur Uttarakhand Mr. L. Swamikant Singh, Director Mr. D.R. Joshi, State Coordinator, TSC Communication & Capacity Development Unit, Swajal, Project Management Unit, Public Health Engineering Department, Mussoorie Diversion Road, Lmphelpat, Imphal, Manipur 795 004 Dehra Dun 248 001 Mobile: 0943689025 Tel: 0135-2733455 Mr. L. Ibomcha Singh, Superintending Engineer Mr. R.S. Bhandari, Community Public Health Engineering Department, Development Specialist Kwakeiphel Moirang Purel Leikh, P.M.V. Swajal, Mussoorie Diversion Road, Imphal, Manipur 795001 Dehra Dun 248 001 Tel: 0385-2457536 Tel: 0135-2733455 Punjab West Bengal Mr. D. S. Cheema, Superintendent Engineer Mr. Chandan Sengupta, Chairman Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Task Force on Total Sanitation Campaign Sangruru Circle, Punjab, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Tel: 01672-234339 Government of West Bengal, KB-18, Sector-3, Salt Lake, Md. Ishpak, Executive Engineer Kolkata, West Bengal Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Mobile: 09830303122 HIG Flat NO.3, Rajguru Nagar, Tel: 033-23582533 Ludhiana 141 001 Tel: 0161-2462735 Mr. Abhijit Lahiri, District Coordinator (Sanitation) Sikkim Murshidabad Zila Parishad, Panchanantala, Burhampur, Ms. Yishey D. Yongda, Deputy Secretary Murshidabad, West Bengal 742 401 Rural Management & Development Department, Tel: 03482-274863 Gram Vikas Bhawan, Tashiling Secretariat, Gangtok, Sikkim Agencies Mobile: 9434164582 Mr. Manish Kumar Ms. Urvashi Poudyal WES Specialist Block Development Officer, UNICEF Rural Management & Development Department, 73 Lodi Estate, BAC, Gangtok, Sikkim New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 03599-2141400 Tel: 011-24690401 Uttar Pradesh Mr. S. N. Dave WES Specialist Mr. Girishchandra, Deputy Director UNICEF Panchayati Raj Uttar Pradesh, 73 Lodi Estate, Jawahar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Lucknow New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 0522-228646 Tel: 011-24690401 79 A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Mr. Rahul Bakare, Director Ms. Upneet Singh Rural Grants Research Analyst ARGHYAM 12 Main Indira Nagar, Ms. vandana Mehra Bangalore Regional Communication Officer Tel : 09902848844 Ms .Geeta Sharma Mr. Arumugam Kalimuthu Regional Communication Officer Senior Program Support Manager PLAN Mr. Mariappa Kullappa E-12, Kailash Colony, Water & Sanitation Specialist New Delhi Tel: 011-46558484 Dr. Suseel Kumar Mobile: 9868888820 Water & Sanitation Specialist Water And Sanitation Program Mr. Kakumanu Arokiam Consultant 55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003 Mr. Manu Prakash Tel: 011 24690488/89 Consultant Fax: 011-24628250 E-mail: wspsa@worldbank.org Ms. Aravinda Satyavada Consultant Mr. Christopher Juan Costain Regional Team Leader Ms. Prapti Mittal Consultant Mr. Ajith C. Kumar Water & Sanitation Specialist Ms. Lira Suri Team Assistant 80 National Workshop A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward A National Workshop on `A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward' was organised in New Delhi on 22 and 23 April 2010 by the Department of Drinking Water Supply (DDWS) in partnership with WSP. The objective of the workshop was to review the status of the TSC, identify the lessons learnt in the implementation of the campaign, and plan for the way forward to realise the goal of making the rural areas Nirmal a reality by 2012. The workshop was inaugurated by the Hon'ble Minister of State for Rural Development, Ms. Agatha Sangma. From the national level, the Union Secretary Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Joint Secretary Mr. J.S. Mathur, Joint Secretary Mr. T.M. Vijay Bhaskar and Director Mr. Vijay Mittal, of the DDWS participated. In addition, representatives from 21 states and three sector partners (UNICEF, WaterAid and Arghyam) joined the event to share their insights and map the way forward. The total number of participants was around 85. The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the emerging trends in TSC implementation over the last decade. On the first day, a presentation was made to highlight the performance on different components of the TSC and the fact that we have to assess our progress towards the Millennium Development Goal or Nirmal Bharat not just in terms of physical coverage but usage of the sanitation facilities created. There was also an opportunity to discuss the findings of two rapid assessments undertaken by WSP. The first was on the patterns of usage and quality of toilets in Nirmal Gram Puraskar winning Panchayats which put the focus on how we can address sustainability of progress under TSC. The second assessment shared the findings of the impact of access to sanitation and hygiene on health and focused on the fact that it was not singular interventions but an integrated package of sanitation and hygiene that is most effective in reaching health outcomes. On the second day, the focus was on the results of a national level assessment of the TSC undertaken by WSP to understand the processes that underpin scaling up and sustainability of TSC. Based on findings from 22 districts across 21 states, the study underscored that districts/states that follow the TSC guidelines in the right spirit and implement the processes in the right way tend to reach the TSC goal faster. It was also agreed that enhancing subsidy was not a solution for increasing coverage and usage among the households. The workshop ended with concluding remarks from the Secretary, DDWS. Water and Sanitation Program Ministry of Rural Development The World Bank Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation 55 Lodi Estate, 9th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan New Delhi 110 003, India CGO Complex, Lodi Road, Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489 New Delhi 110 003, India Fax: (91-11) 24628250 Phone: (91-11) 24362705 E-mail: wspsa@worldbank.org Fax: (91-11) 24361062 Web site: www.wsp.org E-mail: js.tsc@nic.in Web site: www.ddws.nic.in/