Dear all,

I would like to try to put this thread in the spotlight again, as the report that is linked in the first post is an interesting read. Or at least I found it interesting, as I had not kept up with developments in CLTS very much.

The report gives a good insight, I think, in how CLTS –as implemented by PLAN and their partners- has evolved over time. I personally was still under the impression that CLTS was still done by small “triggering teams” in many communities somewhat disconnected from the wider governance structure. However, it seems that with the scaling-up of CLTS some things have changed. Below some of my main takeaways:

The brief presents CLTS more as one component of a sanitation strategy, which should also include building up a supply infra structure. Lack of appropriate materials (and knowledge) is recognized as a problem.

Further, the learning brief mentions that most of the projects work intensively with local governments, and that (lack of) capacity of local governments in working in the CLTS framework is often a difficulty.

Also, I found it interesting to see that Local Volunteers (the Natural Leaders of earlier publications) need a lot of Government or NGO support, and should be compensated for their time.

In general, my impression is that CLTS has moved away somewhat from the notion that communities can do this all by themselves, as long as they are motivated enough. The framework seems to have evolved into an awareness raising and demand creation technique, which works best with significant government or other support.

Finally, what I find really disturbing is finding 5, which is that sanctions for not having toilets are often administered by local officials without a legal framework. In other words, local government officials deny people access to basic government services at their discretion, without a relevant law, for not having a toilet. From anecdotal evidence I know that this can go as far as denying voter registration. As much as I want people to have toilets, I find this indefensible. My impression from the report is that this kind of punishment is quite prevalent under CLTS approaches.

Regards

Marijn

Dear Elisabeth,

I'm glad that you cleared up the confusion.

Regards,

F H Mughal

Ah, you were right, Mughal, there is a full report (67 pages long). Navigating their website is a bit confusing but I saw it now advertised on Sanitation Updates. So here it is:

waterinstitute.unc.edu/files/2016/01/CLT...al-Report_011416.pdf

It's available from this page:
waterinstitute.unc.edu/clts/resource-library/

The proper way of citing it is:

Venkataramanan, Vidya. 2016. CLTS Learning Series: Lessons from CLTS Implementation in Seven
Countries. Chapel Hill, USA: The Water Institute at UNC.

I copy from the executive summary:

++++++++

Thematic Findings

The following themes were identified across the seven case studies, with related findings and
recommendations for CLTS and rural sanitation practitioners:

Role of CLTS: CLTS was widely perceived as being universally applicable to rural communities,
even though outcomes varied depending on community characteristics. Rather than viewing
it as a comprehensive solution to rural sanitation, CLTS should be considered as one
component of a sanitation strategy. If communities that are more likely to be receptive to
CLTS are targeted more systematically, practitioners can allocate remaining resources to test
other approaches, such as sanitation marketing, in other communities less appropriate for
CLTS.

Local government capacity: In five of the seven case studies, local government capacity was
found to be insufficient to lead CLTS activities. Where local governments are unable to lead
CLTS activities, international NGOs (INGOs) can help strengthen their capacity through
training, mentorship, and targeted technical support. INGOs should also engage with local
NGOs (LNGOs) to trigger communities and strengthen village‐level participation. At the same
time, all NGOs should advocate for increased investment from national government to
ensure that there are sufficient staff, finances, and resources for sanitation in local
government.

Role of village‐level actors: A variety of village volunteers were implicated in different phases
of CLTS, but they needed considerable support from Plan International and local government
to motivate communities toward behavior change. CLTS practitioners need to ensure that an
unfair burden is not placed on volunteers. Practitioners should allocate sufficient resources
for training, financial and in‐kind support, recognition, and exchange visits to sustain
volunteer motivation.   

Adaptations to triggering: Triggering techniques had been adapted in all LS case studies, but
adaptations were not always designed with the aim of improving outcomes. Programs
should systematically identify adaptations to CLTS and critically analyze whether the
adaptations are a result of community context or a result of convenience or logistical
constraints. 
  
Sanctions: Although community‐developed sanctions are encouraged in CLTS, most
examples identified through the LS were enacted by village or district government. CLTS
practitioners, including NGOs and government, need to carefully consider the types of
sanctions they actively encourage or passively condone, who enforces the sanctions, and
how they are enforced in practice. Sanctions may be useful in creating and reinforcing social
norms, but they need to be introduced at the right time, in the right manner, and target the
right people.  

Hardware supply and financing: Latrines built as a result of CLTS were often of poor quality,
adversely affecting the sustainability of CLTS outcomes. Access to durable materials,
technical support, and affordability were key obstacles. Plan International can help influence
the nature of post‐CLTS support in communities through approaches that maintain the
motivational nature of CLTS and also provide access to higher quality sanitation options, such
as sanitation marketing. In countries where government or NGO subsidies are present, Plan
International can help influence the mechanisms by which these subsidies are targeted to
ensure that they do not negate CLTS efforts but rather enhance access and sustainability of
outcomes.

Monitoring outcomes: CLTS monitoring activities comprised a variety of process and
outcome indicators, but ultimately focused on achievement of ODF status, except in Haiti.
There were differences in indicators of success, ODF definitions, and ODF verification
guidelines across all LS case study countries. Achievement of ODF status can serve as a
powerful motivational tool for communities to change their sanitation practices. However, it
is less useful as a metric to measure progress; its binary nature suggests that communities
that have nearly achieved 100% latrine coverage may still qualify as “not ODF.” Therefore,
programs should consider focusing on routinely collecting data (including baseline
measurements) on household‐level indicators of sanitation so they can measure and
recognize incremental progress in communities. Improved monitoring of activities will help
generate evidence on the potential, the effectiveness, and the limits of CLTS.  

+++++++

Regards,
Elisabeth

Isn't it the link that Kris gave in his first sentence?:
waterinstitute.unc.edu/lessons-clts-impl...ion-seven-countries/

Or pdf file:
waterinstitute.unc.edu/files/2016/02/clt...ementation-brief.pdf

"Lessons from CLTS Implementation in Seven Countries, Learning Brief, February 2016"

The other title ("From Haiti to Indonesia: What’s Different; What’s the Same in CLTS Implementation") was just the discussion thread title, if I am not mistaken.

Kris, please correct me if I am wrong.

Dear Elisabeth,

That is great
Where can I find the captioned publication? - From Haiti to Indonesia....

Cheers,

F H Mughal

Dear Mughal,

I think the 6-page learning brief is the publication that Kris meant (I am glad about any publication that is short and succinct, rather than a "full" publication! ).

You can find plenty of other publications from them in the forum thread where their project was discussed in the past, see link above, or here:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/5-comm...a-ethiopia-and-ghana

About the link to their website that wasn't working, thanks for pointing that out, I have corrected that now. It was simply due to the fullstop after the URL. As a tip for all users: if you find that a link is not working, check if the fullstop of the sentence got added to the end of the URL. This is often the reason for non-working links.

Kind regards,
Elisabeth

Dear Mr. Kris,

I'm afraid, I'm a bit mixed up. The link in your first line is leading me to a 6-page Learning Brief (Feb 2016). I was expecting a full publication. Kindly help me out. Also, where is the captioned publication? - From Haiti to Indonesia: What's Different........

The link - : waterinstitute.unc.edu/clts/.* - is not working.

Regards,

F H Mughal

Dear Colleagues,

I wanted to alert you to a new CLTS-related publication on our website that may be of interest to you all.

In an unprecedented multi-country study, using rigorous research design and independent data collection and evaluation, Plan International USA and the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) are releasing new findings and results about rural sanitation behavior change processes using the Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach.

This seven country evaluation of case studies presents common features of CLTS implementation, identifies bottlenecks and enabling conditions, and shares lessons relevant to scaling-up CLTS. The research in question identifies implications for practice and delivers policy recommendations across a range of country contexts, including Haiti, Uganda, Niger, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Nepal and Indonesia. Long-form, individual country reports are complemented by a case study meta-analysis, as well as a briefing paper for rapid review of key insights.

Part of a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored applied research project, more findings from the ‘Testing CLTS Approaches for Scalability’ project can be found at: waterinstitute.unc.edu/clts/ .*

Thank you,

Kris Horvath
Director of Knowledge Management and Communications
The Water Institute at UNC


* Or here on the SuSanA discussion forum: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/5-comm...a-ethiopia-and-ghana (added by moderator)