Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities Action Research Learning from East Java, INDONESIA October 2012

Nilanjana Mukherjee

Outline

1. Context and Rationale 2. Research Questions3. Methodology4. Key Findings5. Key Learning & Recommendations

• East Java Province - 37 million people• Home to 20% of Indonesia’s poor• All 29 districts covered

Part of a global WSP initiative to test a combination of scaling up approaches ……..

Scaling Up Rural Sanitation project, East Java, INDONESIA

Phase 3

Phase 2

Phase 1

3

1.4 million people gained access to improved sanitation – 10 times the national rate > 6200 communities triggered with CLTS (70% with government budget)

40% communities verified as Open Defecation Free, BUT ………’Hit rates’ vary 5-98% across districts !

Project Results in East Java 2007- 2011

Key Research Questions

• What factors affect collective behavior change at scale towards Open Defecation Free (ODF) communities ?

• What factors influence the sustainability of the behavior change achieved?

• How can government programs and institutions best support these changes ?

Study sites: 80 communities in 20 Districts

• Participatory Action Research with CLTS-triggered communities .

• Randomization within 4 strata of triggered communities.

NOT ODF 1 yr post-triggering +Low Coverage

<50%

NOT ODF 1 yr.post-

triggering +High Coverage

>80%

LATE ODF In 7 -12 months

of triggering

QUICKLY ODFWithin 2

months of triggering

Response to

Triggerin

g

160 Focus Group Discussions with community groups, including

separate FGDs with Open defecator and sharer households participatory analysis tools

• 574 household sanitation observations and interviews with latrine owners.

• Content analysis of gathered information.

Research Instruments

1. Access gained and sustained

2. Factors associated with ODF achievement

3. Factors associated with ODF sustainability

4. What poor consumers want and will pay for

Key Findings

Base-line

access

2 mo 4 mo 6 mo 8 mo 10 mo 12 mo0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Quick ODFNot )DF-HLate ODFNotODF-L

% h

ouse

hold

s with

sa

nita

tion

QUICKLY ODF communities gained most access in the least time - most efficient scale-up model

Quickly ODF: 95% still verifiably ODF, 4 - 28.5 months after ODF declarationLate ODF: yes, but… some OD continues in 20% communities

Do They Remain ODF?

Flags for Local Goverments: 1. ODF outcomes materializing after many

months need rigorous verification !

2. Once verified and given ODF certificates, communities still need periodic sustainability checks.

Factors associated with ODF achievement

Key Findings

What characterized QUICKLY ODF communities? - 1 (Factors working in favor)

1. High social capital

2. Triggering in response to demand from community leaders.

3. High- quality CLTS triggering : • gender-and- socially inclusive , • proper use of 3 or more CLTS tools, • triggering delinked from advice on latrine building.

4. No history of receiving external subsidies. Contd...

.

-

What characterized QUICKLY ODF communities? - 2 (Factors working in favor)

Post-triggering 5. Households able to access preferred types of latrines at

affordable rates because of easier payment terms brokered by community leaders for all households.

7. Regular community monitoring of both behavior change and construction, with enforcement of sanctions against Open Defecators.

.

-

What characterized LATE ODF communities ? 1. Leaders uninvolved in triggering- less mutual self-help

action – less social capital.

2. Lower - quality CLTS process (2 or fewer CLTS tools used, or used incorrectly,/facilitators discussed latrine building, subsidies, sanitation credit during triggering.)

3. Consumers reject low-cost dry pit solutions as

undesirable.

4. Reliance on slow financing mechanisms like project- provided revolving funds.

5. Community monitored construction, not behavior change.

-

What characterized NOT ODF, but High -coverage communities? (Where Change began, but failed to gather momentum) 1. CLTS triggering quality poor

2. Had all received external sanitation subsidies - had high expectations of further subsidies;

3. Little post-triggering monitoring by external agents or communities themselves .

4. Community unaware of lower-cost options for smell-free, pour-flush systems.

-

What characterized NOT ODF Low- Coverage communities ? (Where change process failed to take off)

1. Situated next to river, canal, sea. “We enjoy defecating in running water. It is clean, convenient, and free of

cost. ………….”The fish eat it up.”“Shit is not something to be kept in homes. The river takes it away” “As long as rivers flow, why spend money/time to build latrines?”…..(FGDs)

2. Situated in remote swamp areas lacking transport and market access. Contd…

What characterized NOT ODF and Low coverage communties ? - 2 (Where change process failed to take off) 3. CLTS triggering quality very poor,

4. Lack of social capital (leaders not trusted, conflicts between hamlets, no collective action traditions)

5. Leaders did not buy-in to ideas of ODF communities and subsidy-free approaches.

6. Complete lack of post-triggering monitoring by anyone…external agents or communities.

-

Factors associated with ODF sustainability

Key Findings

Communities that Sustained their ODF status had:

1. Continued post-ODF behavior monitoring by both community and external agency.

2. Community-devised systems functioning for detecting and sanctioning open defecation.

3. Households enabled (by communities themselves) to acquire low-cost, but somewhat durable sanitation solutions of their choice, in the drive to become ODF.

Communities that failed to sustain their ODF status had:

1. Little behavior and access monitoring after ODF declaration, by communities and/or external agents.

2. Very low-cost/no-cost solutions chosen by households or community leaders to become ODF, - easily damaged, and not repaired/replaced.

3. Lack of information in communities about low-cost, progressively upgradable improved sanitation options.

4. Sharing arrangements breaking down. 5. Sharers continuing with open defecation along with

sharing.

What poor consumers want and will pay for

Key Findings

1

2

3

4

5$ 543 -1304

Labor + 0 cost

$32 – 55

$108 – 163

$ 216-432

In-between households

$ 5 – 25

SANITATION LADDER of Who built what- at what cost in East Java (2008-2010 )

6Rich Households

OD

Poor Households

1

2

3

4

5

6Rp.5-12 million

OD

Labor + 0 cost

Rp.300,000 – 500,000

Rp.1 – 1.5 million

Rp.2-4 million

Pit Latrine- wooden/bamboo slab and wooden lid

Pit Latrine cemented slab,and wooden lid

Cemented offset pitslab, wooden lid,1 pit lined with2 concrete rings

Ceramic pan, pour-flush water seal WC, to 1 pit lined with 2 concrete rings

Ceramic pan, pour-flush water seal WC and 2 pitseptic tank

Ceramic pan, pour flush water sealWC, 2-pit septic tank,+ tiled bathroom

Poor HouseholdsMiddle income households

Rich Households

Rp.50,000– 300,0000

Who built what and at what cost in East Java (2008-2010)

When CLTS ignited demand for improved sanitation, local markets failed to meet expectations of poor consumers.

Poorest invest $5 -55 in a starter level permanent latrine - which only buys improved dry pits – NOT a preferred option

Preferred option - pour-flush latrine, cost $108 ++ in local markets.

When available with installment credit or deferred payments, the poor paid up to $80-85 to get pour-flush latrines.

Open Defecator households commonly owned color TV, cell phones, bicycles, all bought with installment credit.

.

KEY Learning -1 1. QUICKLY ODF communities most efficient model for

scale up. Gained most access and fastest, and sustained ODF outcomes better than all other categories.

2. ODF outcomes materializing after many months are more prone to slippage - need rigorous verification.

3. Sanitation behavior change is difficult to ignite in waterfront communities. They need special strategies for triggering and follow-up.

4. Open Defecators and Sharers have very different motivations for existing behavior, - need to be targeted differently for behavior change.

KEY Learning - 2 5. Good quality CLTS triggering is essential to start the collective

behavior change process. BUT it alone does not guarantee achievement of ODF outcomes.

6. Provided CLTS triggering is of adequate quality, progress to

ODF achievement and sustainability is hastened by:• Community’s social capital• Leadership involvement in change.• Availability and affordability of latrine attributes desired by

consumers.• Absence of externally provided subsidies.• Post-triggering behavior and progress monitoring by external

agencies together with communities.

7. East Java’s poorest open defecators have the ability to acquire improved sanitation facilities of their choice – if available on easier payment terms.

RECOMMENDATIONS for Sector institutions working to

scale up rural sanitation

To get biggest bang for the program buck….1. Invest in market research to improve supply side options

for the poor before starting demand generation at scale.

2. Devise and implement a local ‘hardware subsidy funds management strategy’

3. Cluster communities for intervention according to special triggering strategies and follow-up support needed.

4. Provide CLTS triggering in response to expressed demand from village leadership. Contd..

To get biggest bang for the program buck….

5. Institutionalize funding and accountability for post-triggering and post-ODF monitoring at scale.

6. Establish process quality standards and QA mechanisms for CLTS facilitation by institutions, based on study findings.

THANK YOU !

The Research Team: Nilanjana Mukherjee, bubul44@gmail.com

with Amin Robiarto, Saputra, Effentrif, Djoko Wartono

Field Team:Ronie Prasetyo, Wida Indrayanti, Prachino Kurniawan, Toni Fathoni

Full report, 2012 , Research Brief, 2011 Available on www.wsp.org