EXAMINING SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PEPAM/USAID ACTIVITY IN SENEGAL WEBINAR November 7, 2019 | 9:00 am EST Speaker: Holly Dentz, MPH Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Social Impact Contact: hdentz@waterckm.com Photo Credit: Alioune Watt Hosted by the USAID’s Water Communications and Knowledge Management (CKM) Project and the Water Office 1
EX-POST EVALUATION SERIES Urban Finance & Governance Rural WASH Rural Water & Sanitation Urban Utility Strengthening Rural WASH Rural Sanitation & Hygiene 2
CONTENTS: 1 Activity Background 2 Evaluation Design 3 Findings 4 Key Implications and Recommendations 5 Q&A 3
2. PROGRAM BACKGROUND Activity Name: Millennium Water and Sanitation Program (PEPAM/USAID) Period of Performance: 2009 to 2014 Implementer: Research Triangle Institute Locations: four regions in southern Senegal 11/6/2019 4
2. OVERVIEW OF PEPAM/USAID’S ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTIVES 1)Improve local management of water & sanitation supply (WSS) 2)Increase local demand for improved WSS and hygiene 3)Strengthen local private sector enterprise capacity to provide WSS services 4)Increase local construction & rehabilitation of WSS infrastructure 5)Use community-led total sanitation (CLTS) to reduce/eliminate subsides Photo Credit: WADA I & II Closeout Report and to promote behavior change in HH and WASH-in-schools 11/6/2019 5
2. SPECIFICS OF THE PEPAM/USAID IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH'S Subsidy for water and sanitation services • Infrastructure based on demand creation • Subsidies: - Water Points (WP) ~10% cost share - Household (HH) latrines: varied CLTS with a water incentive (CLTS-WI) • CLTS triggering • ODF Certification lead to option of subsidized: -WP ~10% cost share - Public latrine block Hybrid of CLTS and Subsidy • CLTS triggering or demand creation for water • ~3 months later subsidy introduced: - WP ~10% cost share - HH latrines: varied 11/6/2019 6
3. EVALUATION DESIGN: Research Questions 1. What is the level of service of PEPAM/USAID WP? 2. Which factors influenced sustainably of water Water services? 3. Are women actively engaged in management and governance structures? 1. Are households using and replacing their latrines? Sanitation 2.What factors, including choice of approach, contributed to sustainability? 1. What is the status of handwashing stations and practices today? Handwashing 2. Which factors influenced sustainability of handwashing behavior? 7
3. EVALUATION DESIGN: Data Collection Overview Surveys Structured Observation • 551 Latrines • 514 Water user 291 Handwashing stations 617 Sanitation HH • • • 169 Water points Water Quality T esting Qualitative Interviews 105 E. coli 56 interviews with • • • 105 Iron stakeholders • 64 Fluoride 11/6/2019 8
4. FINDINGS: Water – Current Status and Use Functionality Reliability • WP largely reliable 82% reported year- • round WP function 1 • 18% reported reliability concerns 1 • 63% of WP functional Reasons for unreliability • • WP was broken (40%) • Seasonal fluctuations (34%) • Supply rationing (21%) Reliability varied by pump type and • region Photo credit: THE COCA-COLA FOUNDATION 1 note that this was in relation to their primary water source, not necessarily the PEPAM water point 11/6/2019 9
4. FINDINGS: Water - Current Status and Use Quantity Observation Water User Survey 84% are satisfied/highly satisfied • • Avg stroke rate: 0.27 liters/stroke with water quantity1 Avg flow rate: 0.22 liters/second • 1 note that this was in relation to their primary water source, not necessarily 11/6/2019 the PEPAM water point 10
4. FINDINGS: Water - Current Status and Use Quality Water User Survey • 87% are satisfied/highly “ In this village, no one satisfied with water quality doubts the good quality of the water….since they have E. coli – present in 7 of 105 had access to water from • Iron – 1 of 105 above Ntl. Std. the borehole, many of the • • Fluoride – 5 of 64 above Ntl. diseases found in children Std, 3 above WHO Std. and in the population in general disappeared.” Water Committee Member Photo credit: Holly Dentz 1 note that this was in relation to their primary water source, not necessarily the PEPAM water point 11/6/2019 11
4. FINDINGS: Water - Current Status and Use Accessibility Use Water User Survey Water User Survey • 17% need >30 min • 62% reported using multiple single water sources collection trip Uses of PEPAM/USAID Water Points (n=259) Most needed more • Livestock 36% than one trip Agricul… 11% Chores 73% • Avg. 53 mins per day Hand… 70% Bathing 76% to meet water needs Laundry 76% Cooking 96% Drinking 98% 11/6/2019 12
4. FINDINGS: Water - Current Status and Use Accessibility Use Water User Survey “Community members use the • 17% need >30 min water from this water point for single water drinking and cooking because they collection trip are convinced of the drinkability of Most needed more • the water and this is not the case than one trip with the other water points used for chores.” • Avg. 53 mins per day to meet water needs – Water Management Committee Member 11/6/2019 13
4. FINDINGS: Water – Factors Affecting Sustainability Water Committee Management & Women’s Engagement Water User Survey • 87% of community members say their WC is active 88% say they hold regular meetings • 63% say they ever attended a meeting • Water Committee Interview – 4/11 meet monthly* – 4/11 collect meeting minutes* – 2/11 publish their minutes* • 10 of 11 WC have at least one female member • 17 out of 40 possible WC positions were hold by women * indicators are aligned with PEPAM/USAID 11/6/2019 14
4. FINDINGS: Water – Factors Affecting Sustainability Financial Practices: Tariff recovery & Life Cycle Costs 33% of users report paying for water • • Avg 13,034cfa/HH/year (~$22.50/year) • Users of submersible pumps more frequently paid for water and a paid higher fees Fee collection positively correlated with functionality • Amount of Water Fees Paid by Pump Type Compared with Expected O&M Cost Range, in CFA 11/6/2019 15
4. FINDINGS: Sanitation Current Status and Use HH Survey & Latrine Observation • High rates of sanitation access • PEPAM/USAID promoted latrines are not widely found • 56% of Hybrid village HH had access to basic sanitation Latrine Access in PEPAM/USAID Sanitation Communities Photo credit: Holly Dentz CLTS Hybrid Subsidy Total 96% 94% 92% 87% 77% 73% 70% 69% 68% 69% 66% 56% 54% 49% 47% 36% Any Latrine (n=602) Any Latrine w/Slab Private Latrine (n=603) Private, Improved Latrine (Improved)(n=539) w/Slab (Basic) (n=540) 11/6/2019 16
4. FINDINGS: Sanitation Current Status and Use HH Survey & Latrine Observation • Overall high levels of latrine use • Latrine characteristics • 86% observed appeared in use • CLTS-WI poor quality latrines • 93% of HH had no visible feces • Hybrid and Subsidy showed • 68% reported no OD mixed results • Limited visible feces in compounds across approaches Self-reported Latrine Use 94% 89% 80% 77% Photo credit: Holly Dentz CLTS-WI Subsidy Hybrid Overall 11/6/2019 17
4. FINDINGS: Sanitation Factors Affecting Sustainability Latrine Repair • 49% of respondents repaired their latrines • Highest rates in hybrid villages • Trained masons valued – infrequently consulted Barriers to access and repair/replacement • Full pits • Insufficient financial and material resources → poor latrine quality and failure • Particularly for the poor Limited to no sustained movement up the sanitation ladder Photo credit: Holly Dentz 11/6/2019 18
4. FINDINGS: Sanitation Factors Affecting Sustainability Latrine Quality “There is no challenge except that the larine models they [ PEPAM/USAID] proposed do not last. Every two years we build them. It is at this level that I appeal to them, we really need financial or material support to be able to build modern, sustainable latrines.” Natural Leader - CLTS-WI Photo credit: Holly Dentz 11/6/2019 19
4. FINDINGS: Comparing Implementation Approaches Trade-off Between Approaches Key Outcomes by Approach Type CLTS Hybrid Subsidy Total 94% 89% 86% 77% 77% 70% 69% 58% 56% 54% 49% 48% 49% 47% 42% 36% 36% Appears in Use (n=539) Any Latrine w/Slab Private Improved Latrine Repaired Latrine Issues (Improved) (n=539) w/slab (basic) (n=540) (n=174) 11/6/2019 20
4. FINDINGS: Handwashing Current Status and Use HH Survey and HH with Observed Soap and Water for Observation Handwashing by Approach • 6% had fixed Handwashing CLTS Hybrid Subsidy Total stations (HWS) No observed activity tippy • 39% taps in use 31% 29% • Reversion to pitcher and 25% basin • 85% respondents report handwashing with soap & water • Overall 38% of observed Has Soap and Water (n=601) HWS showed signs of use 11/6/2019 21
Recommend
More recommend
