m&e note-behaviour change - cs wash) funde note 8...overview this note summarises the behaviour...

Overview

This note summarises the behaviour change elements of the projects

being implemented in the Civil Society Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

(WASH) Fund, and sets them within a broader sectoral context. Information in this note draws heavily on the data amassed by the

Monitoring Evaluation and Review Panel (MERP) through monitoring visits

as well as regular contact with the participating Civil Society

Organisations (CSO) and reviewing project progress reports.

What do we mean by Behaviour Change?

Most WASH programs have improved health as their high level objective or goal. The traditional way to achieve this has been to increase access to

water and sanitation infrastructure and services—notably water supplies,

toilets with handwashing facilities and waste management services—essentially addressing issues of supply. However, implicit in this approach

is the assumption that by increasing access—or making facilities and

services available—people will use them. Whilst undoubtedly true in many instances, experience has shown that this link is not universal—

particularly when it comes to sanitation facilities. For many people the

link between drinking unclean water and sickness is clear, but the link between defecating in the open and sickness is less so. Thus demand for

clean water is nearly always present whereas demand for toilets often

needs to be stimulated. Triggering this demand is what we mean by

sanitation behaviour change.

Having and using a toilet alone, however, is not sufficient to achieve the desired health benefits. If only some household members use the toilet

but others still defecate in the open (for example children or the elderly),

then everyone is still being exposed to pathogens from flies, animals and general contact. If people do not wash their hands with soap after

defecating, before preparing and eating food and at other critical times,

FAST FACTS

• Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is the dominant approach to sanitation behavior

change. In a number of countries, Fund projects use variations adapted to the local context

• A number of innovative approaches are applied across the Fund, including Healthy Islands, SuperAmma, output-based aid and

sanitation marketing

• Australian Red Cross (ARC)

• Concern Universal

• Habitat for Humanity (HfH)

• International Development Enterprises (iDE)

• International Rescue Committee (IRC)

• Live & Learn Environmental Education

• Plan International Australia (Plan)

• Save the Children Australia (SCA)

• SNV Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV)

• Thrive Networks (Thrive)

• WaterAid

• Welthungerhilfe

• World Vision Australia

Behaviour Change M&E Note 8 July 2016

FUND CSOs

Civil Society Water, Sanita on and Hygiene Fund

then faecal matter and its pathogens will still be

ingested. Ensuring the facilities are correctly used by

everyone is what we mean by hygiene behaviour change.

The imperative to improve community health in WASH programs has tended to lead to behaviour

change approaches that aim to educate people about

the link between improved sanitation and improved health. Techniques such as Participatory Hygiene and

Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) and Participatory

Health and Hygiene Education (PHHE) are examples of this. However, providing information about health

risks alone has not led to the widespread changes in

behaviour that are needed to have the desired impacts on community health, and so more recently

there has been increasing attention on using other

motivators, such as pride, disgust, shame, sense of belonging or social status, to trigger a demand for

improved sanitation and hygiene behaviours1. The

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)2 approach had early success using shame and disgust as

motivators but more recently there has been a greater

emphasis on the more positive motivators. Whatever process is used, the aim is to lead to change in the

social norms that relate to sanitation and hygiene

behaviour practices that are permanent and

widespread.

The only hope of achieving widespread coverage is to

invest in behaviour change programs that can go to

scale. Some CSO programs aim to achieve scale by leveraging off existing government processes, whilst

others try to demonstrate an effective approach and

promote the idea of it being adopted and replicated

by government (or other programs).

Promo on of Sanita on Behaviour Change

Promotion of sanitation focusses on increasing demand for sanitation infrastructure. Barriers to

uptake of sanitation include: lack of knowledge or

understanding of the health benefits of improved sanitation; social and cultural norms; a lack of

technical skills; availability of materials; or cost3.

There are a range of approaches being applied across the Fund (see Figure 1), and all are attempting to

address one or more of these barriers, using a range

of incentives and processes. These are discussed

briefly in the sections that follow.

Figure 1: Sanitation approaches being used in the Fund

1A Val Curtis, Keynote presentation, WASH Conference, Brisbane 2011.

2Including variants such as School Led Total Sanitation (SLTS).

3This list is not comprehensive but covers the main tangible barriers that most of the approaches seek to overcome. For example, cultural norms can present significant challenges to programs promoting latrine use, however these are very context–dependant and the more generalised approaches are tailored to account for these. 2


Experience has shown that provision of information alone will not convince everyone to end open

defecation and adopt latrine use permanently.

Recognising that if some community members still practice open defecation, then everyone in the vicinity

will be exposed to pathogens, CLTS aims to tap into

other (more primal) motivations such as disgust and shame to drive people towards latrine use. The tools

and techniques highlight the fact that as an individual

you cannot fully protect yourself against the behaviour of your neighbours and so collective action

is needed.

CLTS is by far the most common sanitation behaviour

change approach being used in the Fund. The 16

projects using CLTS or a variant collectively target 1.04 million people (42%) for improved sanitation, or

1.53 million people (51%) if access to basic

unimproved sanitation is included.

In a number of countries CLTS or a variant has been

adopted as the national approach and organisations working in sanitation in these countries are required

to comply. In 2015, the Government of Bangladesh

declared the country open defecation free (ODF) following a concerted CLTS campaign over a number

of years. Similarly, the Government of Nepal has an

ambitious target for the country to become ODF by 2017 and places strict controls over where and how

organisations wishing to work in sanitation can

operate. Both ARC’s and SNV’s projects in Nepal align with the National Government’s Sanitation Master

Plan, despite challenges in some areas such as along

the border with India where SNV is operating. The subsidy approaches being applied in neighbouring

India cause difficulties in applying non-subsidy

programs in Nepal, and the government (in conjunction with the CSOs) has responded by looking

at innovations such as Parliamentarian-Led Total

Sanitation and Women-Led Total Sanitation, and other incentives besides subsidies to encourage

communities to become ODF.

In Malawi, Plan and Concern Universal are both doing CLTS in communities and School-Led Total Sanitation

in schools and work district wide through government

change agents including Health Surveillance Assistants. Both also include a focus on market

centres as part of a push to achieve universal

coverage and get their respective districts declared ODF by 2017 in accordance with the national plan to

declare the whole country ODF by 2021.

Similarly, some countries have adapted CLTS to their

own contexts and development goals, and the Fund

projects in those countries generally align with them.

Examples include:

PAKSI in Timor-Leste blends CLTS with the

national government’s community action planning

(CAP) process for engaging communities in WASH.

WaterAid apply PAKSI in their target communities, and combine it with provision of a water supply,

expecting 3,960 additional people to be living in

ODF communities as a result. Government health staff are supported to monitor progress towards

this goal;

The Community Approach to Total Sanitation

(CATS) approach in Zimbabwe is prescriptive

about technology choices4. This is counter to the pure CLTS approach and may not be affordable for

poor households, so includes a subsidy for the

poorest households. Welthungerhilfe are applying this in their target areas and are working to ensure

177,000 additional people live in ODF

communities;

Pakistan Approach to Total Sanitation (PATS) is

being implemented by Plan and IRC. This approach fits into a broader environmental health

focus and is part of a district wide program to

achieve ODF by 2019—and the approach is very much focussed on supporting government service

delivery. PATS includes the promise of new

infrastructure in communities that are declared

4Only pour flush/flush toilets or the Blair VIP toilet are permitted.

Community‐Led Total Sanita on

3


ODF as a further incentive. Together these two projects aim to have 382,000 more people in ODF

communities; and

Similarly, in Indonesia, Plan is supporting the

Government of Indonesia’s STBM (Community-

Based Total Sanitation) approach. This approach consists of five pillars: achieving ODF;

handwashing with soap; treatment and storage of

water in the home; solid and liquid waste management. Plan’s project is initially funding

delivery themselves through government change

agents before fully handing over the process (including funding) for the final two years of

implementation. This project alone will benefit an

additional 302,000 people.

Health Educa on Approach

The traditional way to address the lack of knowledge

of the health benefits of using improved sanitation

was through education or awareness raising. Various methodologies have been developed for use at the

community level, such as PHAST, which is a seven

step process for identifying poor sanitation in a community and collectively agreeing on a plan to

address it. Both ARC in Lesotho and SCA in Myanmar

are using (or have used) PHAST in their projects.

All six projects in the Pacific use PHAST in some form or other, which reflects the strong cultural acceptance

of the technique in that region. Live & Learn are

applying what they call a blend of PHAST and CLTS which involves the use CLTS-type triggering tools

followed-up with the systematic use of the PHAST

process. Live & Learn have developed a reversible flip-chart with PHAST on one side and CLTS on the other

to be used in villages (see Figure 2). Several of

WaterAid’s partners in PNG were applying a similar mix but more recently have reverted back to pure

PHAST.

Subsidy Approaches5

One way of overcoming cost as a barrier to sanitation uptake is to provide subsidies (full or partial). Projects

providing subsidies for sanitation hardware generally

offer them alongside some sort of health education program such as Participatory Health and Hygiene

Education, and cover the cost of purchased materials;

labour and local materials then form the household

contribution.

Seven of the Fund’s projects are providing direct subsidies to households for toilets, collectively aiming

to provide improved sanitation to around 284,000

people (roughly 12% of the total Fund sanitation target). SCA in Myanmar take a tract-wide approach

Figure 2: Live & Learn’s blend of PHAST and CLTS

5The issue of offering subsidies for sanitation is somewhat controversial, with advocates of approaches such as CLTS arguing that subsi-dies mask true demand for improved sanitation. Proponents counter with the argument that non-subsidy approaches lead to unsustaina-ble outcomes. It is not possible to fully explore this issue in this note, but suffice to say that the argument is evolving and both sides are increasingly acknowledging the need for some type of subsidised approach – smart subsidies – for the poorest of the poor.

4


and provide subsidies to ensure all households within the tract get a pour-flush toilet6. In Lesotho, ARC

provide materials and training to masons to construct

latrines, and in Bangladesh, Habitat for Humanity

provide subsidies for upgrading of basic latrines.

A more nuanced approach to subsidies is to target them towards poor households only, which requires a

way of identifying this demographic. This can be done

by communities themselves, and in some countries, such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the

governments formally identify poor households.

Thrive’s three projects use this mechanism to provide various targeted subsidies, generally paid to poor

households as incentive payments (or rebates) if they

invest upfront in hygienic latrines. This approach, known as output-based aid (OBA), is discussed further

in the next section. In Zimbabwe, Welthungerhilfe has

adopted the government’s official sanitation approach—Community Approach to Total Sanitation

(CATS)—which includes subsidies for the poorest 20%

of households.

Several other CSOs are exploring the idea of smart (or

indirect) subsidies in recognition of the difficulty of reaching the poorest quintile. For example, iDE in

Cambodia is testing market sensitivity to subsidies to

reach the poorest once their SanMark approach has achieved around 80% sanitation coverage in the

target provinces.

Other Approaches

Within the Fund there are a number of projects taking alternative or innovative approaches to engagement

with communities to promote uptake of latrines and

other sanitation infrastructure. Sanitation marketing uses marketing approaches to develop both supply

and demand sides of sanitation service delivery, with

supply chain development as a complementary activity to demand creation. For example, in

Cambodia and Vietnam, iDE has developed a custom

approach to stimulate demand, as part of their broad sanitation marketing program. Sales agents use what

they call sight sellers at village events and door-to-

door. Sight sellers are flipcharts with illustrations of typical daily events, designed around triggers such as

disgust, security/safety, affordability, pride and other

triggers they have identified. The key to success is that people are immediately connected to suppliers

once demand has been triggered. iDE project that an

additional 900,000 people will have improved

sanitation as a result of their project.

In PNG, both World Vision and WaterAid use the Healthy Islands approach (see Box 1), which is a broad

framework for engaging communities to take

responsibility for their own development outcomes The healthy islands approach does not have its own

set of tools for engaging with communities and so

Box 1: Healthy Islands Approach The Healthy Islands concept is a holistic approach to community development that aims to foster a sense of ownership of development processes and health outcomes amongst communities. It was adopted by the Government of PNG in 1995 and has since been incorporated into the National Policy on Health Promotion.

The vision of a Healthy Island Community is one where: Children are nurtured in body and mind

Environments invite learning and leisure

People work and age with dignity

Ecological balance is a source of pride

The ocean which sustains us is protected.

The concept includes consideration of 16 elements, several of which are relevant to WASH programs. These are: adequate water supply and sanitation facilities; nutrition; waste management; lifestyle and quality of life issues; promotion of primary health care; ecological sustainability; environmental and occupational health.

In practice, communities are facilitated to make a series of improvements to their villages and prioritise development activities that lead to health and well-being improvements. Communities that achieve certain criteria can then become beneficiaries of development investments, such as water supplies. The exact mode of implementation is up to the implementing organisation.

6At the time of writing SCA are phasing out their subsidy approach and are looking to introduce a savings and loans schemes to help households finance sanitation investments. 5


CSOs adapt it to fit their own programmatic goals.

Sanitation and hygiene fit nicely into this framework.

Thrive in Lao PDR are championing their results-based OBA approach to provide incentive payments

to poor households once they have invested in a

latrine. OBA is not a stand-alone approach and is effectively a financing mechanism that works as an

incentive to encourage households to invest in toilets.

It leverages off other programs and initiatives - such as the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program’s

CLTS work. Similarly in Vietnam, Thrive’s OBA

approach complements the low-interest loans for household latrine construction being made available

to poor households by the Vietnam Bank for Social

Policies.

Lastly, in Bhutan where access to basic sanitation is

high, SNV concluded that CLTS was not appropriate and have developed an approach called Community

Development for Health. This uses elements of

‘appreciative enquiry’ and ‘self-awareness’ tools to motivate households to upgrade latrines and improve

hygiene behaviours. They are also exploring the

application of the SuperAmma7 approach. Both of these approaches are discussed further in the next

section.

Promo on of Improved Hygiene Behaviour Change

In recognition of the importance of improved hygiene behaviours for community health, the Fund design

mandated that every project should have a hygiene

component. As with sanitation, the widespread benefits of improved hygiene behaviours are only fully

realised if they are universal, and yet to date there are

no widely hailed techniques for triggering hygiene behaviour change at scale. The efficacy of the

plethora of techniques being applied across the

sector depends on context and very often the facilitation skills of those tasked with promoting

improved hygiene. To better understand the context

in which they work, a number of projects are involved with studies into behaviour change triggers in order to

inform their approaches:

WaterAid in Mozambique is collaborating with the

Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo to

investigate behaviour change triggers in peri-

urban settings;

ARC in conjunction with Latrobe University in

Australia completed formative research on

obstacles to sustained hygiene behaviour change

in Nepal;

SNV in Bhutan, in collaboration with the Ministry of

Health, have undertaken formative research8 to develop an evidence base for their behaviour

change communication strategies; and

WaterAid in PNG are collaborating with the

International WaterCentre to investigate infant

faeces management.

In addition to formal studies, many of the Fund

projects are engaged in either action research or targeted knowledge exchange or learning activities

aimed at better understanding how to influence

behaviour. In March 2015, SNV in Bhutan convened a regional workshop on Behaviour Change

iDE’s Sight Seller Approach. Photo: Paul Tyndale-Biscoe

7The SuperAmma approach is a communication campaign based on behavioural science research designed to encourage the habit of washing hands with soap. (www.superamma.org).

8entitled ‘National Formative Study on Sanitation and Hygiene Behaviours’ 6


Communication (BCC) which led to the development of a set of guidelines for its wider Sustainable

Sanitation and Hygiene for All program. Plan in

Pakistan has developed a BCC strategy, framework, and manual, to guide and inform their program and

the government’s PATS approach more broadly. iDE

has conducted some BCC action research which they have shared through a blog entitled “Results from

Behaviour Change Pilot”9, and ARC Lesotho and World

Vision PNG have both documented case studies of

their BCC work10.

Figure 3 illustrates the variety of behaviour change approaches being employed within the Fund.

Community based approaches and hygiene

promotion in schools dominate the approaches, but within these broad categories there is further

variation.

School Hygiene Promo on, Child‐to‐Child Approaches

Recognising that it is easier to influence the behaviour of children than adults, and that learned behaviours

in childhood will often last a lifetime, many projects

are deliberately targeting school children. This generally links to school sanitation initiatives

focussed on provision of infrastructure, but in some

cases is embedded in sanitation behaviour change

approaches such as School Led Total Sanitation.

A reasonably common approach is to form and/or support school health clubs as a mechanism for

engaging with school children for behaviour change.

Overall the general purpose of the clubs are common to all projects—identifying child leaders and using

them to reach a greater number of children through

child-to-child or peer learning. However, the specific focus of the clubs varies depending on the

circumstances. Some examples include:

In PNG, Fiji and the Solomon Islands Live & Learn’s

projects have formed school health clubs as a

vehicle to advocate for WASH facilities as well as

support child-to-child or peer learning; and

Plan in Pakistan and HfH are supporting teachers

to establish clubs in schools and leveraging this to

also promote improved hygiene at home – an

approach called ‘diffusion of innovation’.

A number of projects have adapted or developed

specific information, education and communication materials for school health clubs to use, including

World Vision in Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe and all of the

Live & Learn projects. Welthungerhilfe in Zimbabwe is using PHHE materials in schools, market places,

clinics and communities.

Several projects use theatre and performance to

promote hygiene messages. In PNG and Fiji, Live &

Learn has an ‘Arts for Advocacy’ technique they

Figure 3: Hygiene promotion approaches being used in the Fund (number of projects)

9http://blog.ideorg.org/2014/11/19/results-from-behavior-change-pilot/

10Mathabang Case Study (ARC Lesotho) and Murr Lagoon [Healthy Islands] Success Story (World Vision PNG). 7


promote through school health clubs, using drama,

song, dance etc. to promote improved hygiene messaging. World Vision in Zimbabwe is also doing

this, and in Myanmar SCA is training cadres of children

(called peer children) who use song and dance to pass on hygiene messages to others. In Nepal, SNV is

engaging amateur theatre groups to perform hygiene

‘street dramas’, and in Malawi, Concern Universal is engaging local theatre groups to deliver key hygiene

messages through drama.

Plan in Malawi engaged a local CBO to facilitate

menstrual hygiene management11 in schools using

mothers’ groups.

Working at a more institutional level, Live & Learn in

PNG, Fiji and Vanuatu is attempting to embed and strengthen hygiene promotion and messaging in

school curricula by engaging with the relevant

Education Ministries. Live & Learn is also looking at supporting the development of BCC approaches in

schools with the Ministry of Education in Fiji.

Drawing on ‘Nudge Theory’, Thrive is exploring an

innovative approach to encourage handwashing in

schools based on work by Save the Children in Bangladesh. The approach uses visual cues that draw

children from the latrines to the handwashing

stations (see Box 2). The concept was recently awarded first place in the Fund-supported Civil

Society Innovation Award, announced at the WASH

Futures Conference 2016 in Brisbane.

Community Health Clubs

In addition to health clubs in schools, a number of

projects also support these groups at the community

level. Along with the peer children mentioned above, SCA in Myanmar also work with Peer Mothers who are

groups of women working on a voluntary basis

carrying out house-to-house visits to promote key hygiene messages. In Zimbabwe, World Vision are

forming and supporting community health clubs to

promote good hygiene behaviour in their

communities through drama and household visits. A hygiene street drama in Nepal's Terai region. Photo: Bruce Bailey

Box 2: ‘Nudge Theory’ Innovation

Save the Children Bangladesh, in conjunction with the University of Oklahoma, have developed an inexpensive set of cues—or nudges—to encourage handwashing after toilet use. School toilets, handwashing facilities and pathways were painted with bright colours to guide children from the latrines to the handwashing station. No other educational material or motivational messages were included. Handwashing rates increased from 4% to 68% immediately and rose to 74% after two weeks, remaining at that level at six weeks, suggesting that the improved behaviour was permanent.

Details at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26784210

11Menstrual hygiene management is discussed further in the M&E Note 9: Gender and Social Inclusion. 8


Village or Community Health Workers

In many countries the government provides a person

responsible for provision of basic or front-line health services in communities. These may be paid

government employees, but quite often are

volunteers with formal recognition of their role as

reward.

Most of the projects working at community level do so through these people, known variously as Village or

Community Health Workers, Health Extension – or

Surveillance – Officers or Assistants. Some projects provide their own – for example ARC in Nepal have

engaged Community Motivators (Red Cross

volunteers) to conduct household visits and run

campaigns.

Other examples of projects working with Village

Health Workers include:

Support to Health Assistants being provided by

ARC in Lesotho;

Concern Universal and Plan in Malawi who both

work through Health Surveillance Assistants—

frontline government staff based in local health

posts tasked (amongst other things) with health promotion. The projects provide further support to

increase the efficacy of their work. At the village

level, natural leaders (often village heads) work with the Assistants to promote health and hygiene

within their villages;

Plan in Pakistan are encouraging the government

to recruit female community motivators to

increase the level of engagement with women

community members; and

In Vietnam, there are quasi-government bodies

Nepal Red Cross Society Community Motivators participating in a community WASH meeting. Photo: Bruce Bailey

9


down to commune level, including the Women’s Union and the Centre for Preventive Medicine. All

three of the Fund’s Vietnam based projects work

with these organisations to promote sanitation. Plan has developed information, education and

communication materials to supplement those

provided under Vietnam’s National Target Program and has integrated hygiene promotion

into the CLTS program being implemented

through the Women’s Union.

A general issue with volunteerism is whether or not it

can be sustained beyond the life of the project. Volunteers often complain about the lack of resources

to do their jobs. CSOs are often able to provide

resources, but this begs the question of how this support can be provided in an ongoing way after

project completion. It is generally recognised that

paying stipends, giving bicycles or uniforms or providing other resources and incentives is not

sustainable and leads to raised expectations that

cannot be met. When the support stops, so do the volunteers. Providing support to paid government

frontline staff (if available) can overcome this. SNV’s

Community Development for Health approach is an example of this. The project provides training to

government Health Assistants based in Basic Health

Units in a range of participatory tools and assessment techniques, who then apply these in the communities

for which they are responsible. The approach is

embedded in government systems and is likely to

persist beyond the project implementation period.

Other Approaches

Working through child clubs or village health workers

is quite intensive and presents problems when trying to go to scale – as such, they are examples of

approaches that have high exposure but potentially

limited reach. The flip side of this are approaches that have high reach but low exposure, such as mass

media campaigns through television or radio (for

example Live & Learn in Fiji) and road shows (Plan in Indonesia and Welthungerhilfe in Zimbabwe).

Generally, the efficacy of these is questionable and so

all projects using these approaches have them as supplementary activities to the more intensive

approaches.

Health Assistant facilitating a Community Development for Health workshop in Bhutan. Photo: Bruce Bailey

10


Capitalising on global campaigns is also common— with several projects specifically contributing to

global WASH days such as Global Handwashing Day

(World Vision in Sri Lanka) and Menstrual Hygiene Day

(Live & Learn in PNG).

Going Beyond ODF – Progress Towards the SDGs

The Fund was conceived during the last years of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) period and the

MDGs formed the framework within which most

projects were designed. For sanitation this meant a focus on reducing the number of people without

access to improved latrines – or simply increasing the

number of toilets. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set a far more ambitious target for

WASH, aiming for universal access to water, sanitation

and hygiene for all by 2030. This goes beyond just access to toilets and other facilities but means that

facilities are accessible to all, are used by everyone,

and that the resulting faecal sludge is properly

managed.

Some projects within the Fund have sought to incorporate these into their approaches, either

through their own foresight or that of the

governments of the countries in which they work. In Pakistan, for example, the government has set the

approach to sanitation within a broader

environmental health focus, which aligns with the SDGs. Both the IRC’s and Plan’s projects there are

supporting the government’s national approach by

targeted support through demonstration, capacity building and institutional strengthening. In the

Punjab, where Plan’s project operates, the provincial

government has set the ambitious goal of total

sanitation by 2019.

In Nepal the government has shown strong leadership in the sector and firmly directs how international

CSOs and other organisations operate. The country is

projected to achieve 100% ODF during 2017 and has now set its sights on total sanitation. ARC’s and SNV’s

projects are firmly aligned with this agenda.

Lastly, in Indonesia the government has defined its

approach to promotion of sanitation, STBM, as discussed above. Plan’s project there is providing

support to government in the target province (Nusa

Tenggara Timur) to facilitate the roll-out of the

approach.

Summary

Whilst globally there is much debate around which approaches are better or more effective than others,

no attempt has been made here to draw such

conclusions—and at mid-point it is certainly too early to do this. The examples presented show the large

variety of approaches being taken within the Fund

and the key lesson is that CSOs need to focus on what works most effectively within their operating context.

This requires well designed monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) frameworks, solid processes for building and sharing the evidence-base and ensuring

the evidence informs strategies and approaches.

Over the remaining period of implementation, the

MERP will conduct a second round of monitoring visits

and through the Fund’s performance assessment arrangements will further build the Fund’s activity

information database. Although the scope of these

visits is still being defined they are likely to focus on: how the Fund has improved the performance of key

WASH sector actors; impacts and long term benefits

for target populations; sustainability and exit plans; contributions to knowledge and learning including

documenting lessons learned; impact of knowledge

and learning activities under the Fund; and factors contributing to the success or poor achievement of

project outcomes.

11

About the Fund

The Civil Society Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Fund is a $103 million investment by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

that is supporting 13 Civil Society Organisations to implement 29 WASH projects in 19 countries throughout Africa, Asia and the Pacific over four

years to 2018.

The overarching goal of the Fund is to improve public health by increasing access to safe water and sanitation. The objective is to enhance the health

and quality of life of the poor and vulnerable by improving sustainable

access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene.

Authors

This M&E Note was prepared by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Review

Panel (MERP) for the Civil Society WASH Fund. MERP members are:

Bruce Bailey, Team Leader ([email protected])

Paul Crawford, M&E Specialist ([email protected])

Paul Tyndale-Biscoe, WASH Specialist ([email protected])

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Anne Joselin, Robyne Leven, Bronwyn Powell and Amanda

Morgan for valuable comments and edits.

Citation:

Civil Society WASH Fund (2016) M&E Note 8: Behaviour Change

m&e note-behaviour change - cs wash) funde note 8...overview this note summarises the behaviour...

Documents