SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Mon, 01 Sep 2014 23:23:42 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb Frontiers of CLTS issue 3: Disability- making CLTS fully inclusive - by: Petra Frontiers of CLTS series- Disability: Making CLTS fully inclusive. This issue was co-authored by Jane Wilbur (WAterAid) and Hazel Jones (WEDC)

About this issue:
CLTS aims at total sanitation. For that it has to be inclusive. There are ethical reasons for this, but the bottom line is that while any open defecation continues, all are affected.

This issue of Frontiers of CLTS focuses on people with disabilities and particular needs for access to sanitation. People affected tend not to be present at triggering, to lack voice in the community, to have their needs overlooked, and may even be hidden by their families. This issue outlines the reality of the experiences of disabled people, the varied nature of their needs and how they can be met. It includes practical recommendations for people engaged in CLTS to make the different phases and processes of CLTS more inclusive.

You can download the publication here.

Please feel free to share it widely with colleagues and contacts. All previous issues and their translations can be found here.

Best wishes,

Petra Bongartz, for the CLTS Knowledge Hub]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:09:10 +0000
Re: Important learning on sustainability thanks to Plan ODF sustainability study - by: Petra CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:24:50 +0000 Re: Important learning on sustainability thanks to Plan ODF sustainability study - by: F H Mughal CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia


F H Mughal

Answer by moderator (EvM): This was also my first thought that it should be linked with this other discussion:

However, I asked Petra and she said she prefers a separate thread, rather than a continuation of the previous thread.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:03:43 +0000
Re: Important learning on sustainability thanks to Plan ODF sustainability study - by: Petra
Long Term Sustainability of Improved Sanitation in Rural Bangladesh (WSP)

Factors Associated with Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities: Learning from East Java (WSP)]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:48:34 +0000
Re: Important learning on sustainability thanks to Plan ODF sustainability study - by: paultyndale
I would be interested to know whether others have explored the issue of how to improve latrine quality without introducing subsidies - or whether clever or hidden subsidies, or credit/loans schemes have achieved this in CLTS programs without masking the true motivation to build a latrine that CLTS is premised on.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Wed, 19 Mar 2014 06:20:34 +0000
Important learning on sustainability thanks to Plan ODF sustainability study - by: Petra ODF Sustainability study which was carried out in Ethiopia, Kenya, Sierra Leone and Uganda between March 2012 and October 2013. The study is available here (full report and a short summary of findings) here if you have not yet seen it. It is great to see that Plan is investing in learning in this way and willing to share the results in a transparent way. The study presents an important milestone in that it will enable CLTS practitioners everywhere to learn more about what works, what doesn't and to consider adjustments and additions to CLTS programmes and projects that will help make efforts more sustainable.

The study should be taken as an important tool to improve CLTS implementation, practice and sustainability. It is timely and I am sure will be much welcomed by all of those seriously engaged in CLTS.

More than 60 countries are now implementing the approach, many countries having incorporated or even made it the core of their sanitation policies, and there have been many adaptations, for example urban CLTS (also in some contexts referred to as Citizen-led Total Sanitation), School-led Total Sanitation (SLTS), CLTSH (Community-led Total Sanitation and Hygiene), CATS (Community Approaches to Total Sanitation) in UNICEF, Pakistan Approach to Total Sanitation (PATS), Women-Led Total Sanitation, Leader-Led Total Sanitation etc. It has been almost 14 years since the approach was first innovated by Kamal Kar in Bangladesh, and in this time, CLTS has moved through many stages. In many countries, alongside continuing efforts to refine overall quality, we are now confronted with new and emerging challenges that this new landscape of CLTS at scale, and in many cases spearheaded by national governments, brings with it. Many questions remain unanswered and much needs to be found out and analysed, and many insights and innovations shared.

Among the many problems and opportunities that stand out most prominently include physical, social and institutional sustainability, second and third generation problems with ODF communities, long term follow up, monitoring and verification, equity and inclusion of those who are poorest and least able, integration of CLTS and Sanitation Marketing, triggering and adoption of handwashing, and adaptations and applications in urban, school and post-emergency contexts.

Most, if not all of these issues could be combined under the umbrella of sustainability. There is a long list of unknowns, challenges and opportunities. Anyone seriously engaged in CLTS is aware that it is not a one size fits all silver bullet but that it hinges on the quality of facilitation and on the commitment, ability and nimbleness of the people involved at all levels. In order for the approach, as well as practice and enabling policies to continue to evolve and grow, we need a constant learning feedback loop: learning from what happens on the ground, in communities needs to inform adjustments to programmes, projects and policies. As with anything, there is good practice and there is bad practice, there are things that work well and there are things that ask us all to reflect on, trial and share innovative ways of addressing the issues and questions.

With this study, Plan has given us a great opportunity to renew our efforts to understand better and work on

• the period between post-triggering and ODF
• definitions of ODF
• triggering and sustaining handwashing and hygiene behaviour change (timing and sequencing of messages about these)
• ongoing monitoring, verification and certification,
• post-ODF follow up

I hope that the study can be a starting point for discussions and much sharing and learning across countries and organisations of ideas, innovations and insights. It would be great to have a constructive discussion as to how to take forward the findings and how different actors plan to (or are already) addressing some of the issues raised by the study.

At the annual review meeting of the Plan Pan Africa programme ( in Lusaka last week (3-5 March) we spent considerable time discussing the study and its implications for practice and programming. All 7 countries present (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Niger, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Zambia) as well as staff from Plan Netherlands, Plan USA, IRC, UNC and the IDS –based CLTS Knowledge Hub came up with action plans detailing how they are going to address the findings. More on this will be posted on the Pan Africa project page ( in due course.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:29:32 +0000
Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia - by: sengel, led us to believe that sustainability could be a concern in a number of fronts, the lack of focus on emptying services being one. However our main focus was in the use of shaming, fines and sanctions mostly employed against the poorest in the communities we studied. Our analysis suggested that this approach was unlikely to produce long term behaviour change as similar approaches used in colonial times in Indonesia had not. Equally to link to the human rights issue raised earlier in this thread, we see that the shaming techniques impinged on the rights of villagers. In terms of practical suggestions, how about ending the use of fines, taunting and sanctions against poor and often vulnerable households. It's no more than school yard bullying legitimised by program goals.

Susan Engel
University of Wollongong]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:41:49 +0000
Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia - by: paultyndale
Firstly, the discussion of sustainability in this thread came not from the factor analysis part of the study but the (purely observational) data from the re-verification phase.

Secondly, on the study methodology:

The list of factors was not presented to households during the interview process (as stated in the post below) - households never saw the list of factors. The study used a latrine timeline tool in which household members in a group were asked to develop a timeline for their latrine, from initial construction to the present. The timeline consisted of a line on the ground (or sim) with major milestones identified - latrine construction/re-construction, maintenance, collapse, pit filling up etc, as well as any significant events such as wet/dry seasons, harvest, ODF celebrations etc. The enumerators then focused the discussion on a significant event such as the final latrine collapse (for OD households) or repair (for ODF households) and were trained to facilitate in a non-leading way, listen to (and record) the response and then classify it according to the pre-determined factor list. The analysis used both the quantitative data (number of factors mentioned) as well as the qualitative data (the recorded comments). Further details of the methodology can be seen in Annex D of the report (enumerators guide).

We acknowledge the shortcomings in the methodology - particularly the facilitation skills of the enumerators (and the variation between enumerators) - and the difficulties of capturing behavioural information through observations and interviews. I think anyone doing M&E in WASH faces the same challenge as the resources required to do longitudinal studies or conduct more intense processes are not available in most implementing organisations. This is one of the reasons why the study stops short of making definitive statements or conclusions and in fact raises as many questions as it answers. We see it as the beginning of a process to look at sustainability of CLTS rather than providing final answers.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0000
Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia - by: StephTTam
While I'm not saying that CLTS is a definitive solution to WASH behaviour change, I do think that the way the Plan study was conducted generated a misrepresentation of what the actual effects of CLTS are. The study acknowledges its shortcomings, but I don't think they're sufficiently taken into consideration when understanding their impact on the study's conclusions.

The list of motivational and facilitative behavioural factors that was generated a priori to the fieldwork, and then presented to households biased the way that households responded - the fact that only these factors were mentioned by the households is indicative of the way that the presence of these predetermined factors crowded out alternative ideas. We know that when faced with a researcher, households tend to give answers that they think the researcher wants to hear. We also know that people are not always fully conscious of what factors are predisposing us towards daily behaviours, which we mostly perform "mindlessly". To ask people to identify "rational" causes for their behaviour is to ask them to haphazardly guess and make up answers that will satisfy the researcher.

In short, I think that the focused discussions and surveys generated distorted data. It would help if the design of discussions and surveys were more sensitive to unintentional behavioural cues offered by the facilitator and the setting by using opposing behavioural triggers to neutralize existing unavoidable and biasing triggers.

I also wonder about the reliability of performing one-off observations to determine use of latrine and handwashing facilities, which likely changes over time, and fail to capture frequency of use. These "snapshot" assessments must be taken with a large margin of error.

My foremost concern is the continued use of survey methods to analyze behaviour change, prioritizing quantity of information over accuracy. Behaviour is ephemeral and very different from the kinds of hardware interventions that survey methods were originally designed to assess. We have to come up with better methods for capturing and representing behaviour change, because survey methods do not adequately address temporality. We need to learn from performance-based fields like behavioural economics and ethnography, which have developed tools for studying human behaviour.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:13:41 +0000
Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia - by: pfeldman CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:53:49 +0000 Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia - by: snel
Marielle Snel
IRC- International Water and Sanitation Centre]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:47:00 +0000
Re: ODF Sustainability Study by Plan Australia - by: paultyndale
I've just come across this thread and want to add our perspective. Firstly it is great that the report is being circulated and read, and the results discussed. For us (and I believe Plan) the point of the study was to examine their approach and learn from what has worked and what hasn't, and to contribute to the evidence base for CLTS.

I think it is a mis-representation to state that the study shows CLTS is unsustainable - our conclusion was actually the opposite: 87% of households continuing to maintain their latrines is actually a very positive result.

However each of the 4 study countries had their own set of criteria for ODF verification/certification as applied by the respective governments, most of which are indicators of improved hygiene behaviour, and it was when these were applied that the slippage rates increased. Therefore rejecting CLTS because the hygiene promotion component of a sanitation program is not as effective as it could be is like throwing the baby out with the bath water (to use an apt analogy). A more constructive conclusion would be to look at how hygiene behaviour change can be improved (something I would argue every WASH program struggles with - CLTS or not) to build on the success of household uptake and retention of latrines.

This is what the study was trying to say, and I commend Plan for investing resources in objectively critiquing it's approach in an attempt to improve sustainability, and for making the results public so others can benefit also. I think it would be an unfortunate outcome if selective bits of the study were used (without basing them in the overall study findings) to promote a particular viewpoint.

To this end I think the title of this thread is unhelpful as it links Plan Australia to what I believe is an incorrect conclusion (although I agree with the Elisabeth's comment that provocative titles do create more of a stir).]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:52:45 +0000
Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Study by Plan Australia - by: pfeldman
As mentioned previously by other commenters - it would be much more helpful to focus on the important findings of the report (as darrens pointed out) and how to improve the strength and longevity of not only CLTS, but ALL community sanitation program outcomes. CLTS has been demonstrated effective at changing community behaviour regarding toilet use but is still challenged by hygiene and latrine up-gradation issues. The Plan Australia study is another important data point in this regard.

Personally, I have grown quite tired of the CLTS-basheing. As other commenters said - rather than do that, comemnters please provide constructive suggestions about alternative or innovative approaches that can match, or improve upon, open defecation drives carried out by CLTS programs (and the evidence to support it would also be much appreciated).

This work is hard enough - there's no need for those of us who practice these arts to be taking pointless potshots at other peoples' work.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:08 +0000
Re: ODF Sustainability Study - Plan Australia - by: dietvorst
First of all, Plan should be complimented for commissioning one of the most comprehensive independent evaluations of CLTS sustainability to date. Hopefully the study will convince other sector organisations how essential sustainability evaluation is.

That said, the most striking finding remains the fact that 92% of the CLTS programme households surveyed failed to meet Plan's own ODF standards 2 or more years after latrine construction. This answers the most important question, did the CLTS approach used lead to a sustained ODF ststus. That Plan is a learning organisation and is willing to take up the challenge to make its sanitation programmes more sustainable is praiseworthy. I have highlighted some of the nuances of the report in other posts to this discussion.]]>
CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:13:57 +0000
Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Plan International study - by: Darrens CLTS (Community led total sanitation) Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:29:13 +0000