A Decade of the Total Sanitation - documents.worldbank.org...hygiene on health and focused on the...

Volume 1: Main Report

A Decade of the Total Sanitation CampaignRapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes

Water and Sanitation ProgramThe World Bank55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, IndiaPhone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

Ministry of Rural DevelopmentDepartment of Drinking Water and Sanitation9th Floor, Paryavaran BhawanCGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003, IndiaPhone: (91-11) 24362705Fax: (91-11) 24361062E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ddws.nic.in/

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb370910

Typewritten Text

60716 v1

Disclaimer

Raw data for graphs and figures in this report have been taken from the Total Sanitation Campaign online monitoring system in early 2010, but during different months (www.ddws.nic.in and www.nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in). Therefore,there may be some differences in graphs on related indicators due to the time lag between different points when information was accessed and subsequent updates to TSC/NGP websites.

National Workshop A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward

A National Workshop on ‘A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward’ was organised in New Delhi on 22 and 23 April 2010 by the Department of Drinking Water Supply (DDWS) in partnership with WSP. The objective of the workshop was to review the status of the TSC, identify the lessons learnt in the implementation of the campaign, and plan for the way forward to realise the goal of making the rural areas Nirmal a reality by 2012.

The workshop was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Rural Development, Ms. Agatha Sangma. From the national level, the Union Secretary Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Joint Secretary Mr. J.S. Mathur, Joint Secretary Mr. T.M. Vijay Bhaskar and Director Mr. Vijay Mittal, of the DDWS participated. In addition, representatives from 21 states and three sector partners (UNICEF, WaterAid and Arghyam) joined the event to share their insights and map the way forward. The total number of participants was around 85.

The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the emerging trends in TSC implementation over the last decade. On the first day, a presentation was made to highlight the performance on different components of the TSC and the fact that we have to assess our progress towards the Millennium Development Goal or Nirmal Bharat not just in terms of physical coverage but usage of the sanitation facilities created. There was also an opportunity to discuss the findings of two rapid assessments undertaken by WSP. The first was on the patterns of usage and quality of toilets in Nirmal Gram Puraskar winning Panchayats which put the focus on how we can address sustainability of progress under TSC. The second assessment shared the findings of the impact of access to sanitation and hygiene on health and focused on the fact that it was not singular interventions but an integrated package of sanitation and hygiene that is most effective in reaching health outcomes.

On the second day, the focus was on the results of a national level assessment of the TSC undertaken by WSP to understand the processes that underpin scaling up and sustainability of TSC. Based on findings from 22 districts across 21 states, the study underscored that districts/states that follow the TSC guidelines in the right spirit and implement the processes in the right way tend to reach the TSC goal faster. It was also agreed that enhancing subsidy was not a solution for increasing coverage and usage among the households. The workshop ended with concluding remarks from the Secretary, DDWS.

A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes

2

Acknowledgements

The study feeding into this report, the analysis and report writing was undertaken in the first quarter of 2010 by a team from the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), which included Ajith Kumar, Upneet Singh, Suseel Samuel, Mariappa Kullappa, Rajiv Raman, Manu Prakash, Kakumanu Arokiam, Aravinda Satyavada and Prapti Mittal. Their contribution to the development of this report is acknowledged. Acknowledgement is also due to the participants of the various workshops, where this study was presented, and whose feedback and questions enabled the contents of the report to be enriched. Thanks are also due to Christopher Juan Costain, Regional Team Leader (WSP) for support and feedback, Vandana Mehra for support in production and dissemination of this study, and Lira Suri for coordinating logistics backup support during the study period.

The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (DDWS), Government of India, is also acknowledged for the data which formed a major source for this report, as also the Joint Secretary and Director for the comments and Foreword for this report.

While all efforts have been made to ensure that the data presented are correct, any inadvertent errors remain the responsibility of the author team.

3

Foreword

The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) is a flagship programme of the Government of India, and has achieved significant success over the last one decade. The coverage has increased significantly from 21 percent in 2001 (Census, 2001) to more than 65 percent, according to the TSC online monitoring system. The number of Gram Panchayats which have won the Nirmal Gram Puraskar for achieving total sanitation has also increased to more than 22,000. The TSC can be considered one of the most effective programmes in rural sanitation across the world for its focus on a community-led, demand-driven approach in reaching total sanitation to villages across the country, resulting in rural populations living in a clean, healthy environment.

A decade after the implementation of the campaign is an opportune time for the country to assess and ascertain its status, the successes achieved, and the challenges faced, so that the remaining task of ensuring that the entire country becomes Nirmal can be adequately addressed. Despite overall progress, there still remain challenging states and districts where the programme is yet to show satisfactory results.

This analysis of the TSC online monitoring data and the assessment of processes adopted by districts correlated with outcomes achieved by these districts will go a long way in understanding the successes and challenges of the programme. The benchmarking of the districts and states, based on the TSC monitoring indicators, helps understand the relative position of states and districts, which enables more focused attention on the lagging areas as well as more encouragement to the leaders.

J. S. MathurJoint Secretary to the Government of IndiaDepartment of Drinking Water and SanitationMinistry of Rural DevelopmentNew Delhi


4

5

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 11

1. INTRODUCTION / 13 1.1 Context / 13 1.2 Purpose / 13 1.3 Methodology / 14 1.4 Organisation of this Report / 21

2. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN / 23 2.1 Background / 23 2.2 Evolution of the Policy Framework for Rural Sanitation / 23 2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines / 24 2.4 TSC Delivery Structure / 25 2.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels / 26

3. A DECADE OF TSC: PROGRESS AND STATUS / 33 3.1 Introduction / 33 3.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge / 33 3.3 Inputs / 34 3.4 Outputs / 40 3.5 Process / 45 3.6 Outcomes / 49 3.7 Goal / 51

4. TSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES AT DISTRICT LEVEL: FINDINGS OF THE RAPID ASSESSMENT / 52 4.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and Rating Scale (Cumulative) / 53 4.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation / 54 4.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity / 57 4.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up / 60 4.5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain / 64 4.6 Component 5: Financing and Incentives / 67 4.7 Component 6: Monitoring / 70

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 73 5.1 Summary / 73 5.2 Recommendations / 73

REFERENCES / 75

NATIONAL WORkSHOP ON RURAL SANITATION: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / 76


6

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 15Table 1.2: Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model – Indicators

and Weighted Score / 17Table 1.3: Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands / 17Table 1.4: List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment / 18Table 1.5: Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes / 20Table 2.1: Population-linked Incentives / 25Table 3.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 34

List of Figures

1. INTRODUCTIONFigure 1.1: Study Methodology / 14

2. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGNFigure 2.1: TSC Delivery Structure / 26Figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India / 27Figure 2.3: NGP Winners (2005-09) / 27Figure 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign? / 28Figure 2.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC Funds? / 29Figure 2.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the

TSC Target? / 29Figure 2.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target? / 30Figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level? / 30Figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States? / 31Figure 2.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal? / 31Figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States? / 32Figure 2.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across

Different States? / 32

3. A DECADE Of TSC: PROGRESS AND STATUSFigure 3.1: TSC Objectives, 1999 / 34Figure 3.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey) / 35Figure 3.3: Financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR, Crore) / 35Figure 3.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR, Crore) / 36Figure 3.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) / 36Figure 3.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) / 37Figure 3.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR) / 37

7

Figure 3.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR) / 38Figure 3.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR) / 38Figure 3.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR) / 39Figure 3.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR) / 39Figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR) / 40Figure 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative) / 40Figure 3.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace - Current and Required / 41Figure 3.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC, by State / 41Figure 3.16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC / 42Figure 3.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC / 42Figure 3.18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC / 43Figure 3.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC / 43Figure 3.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC / 44Figure 3.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target / 44Figure 3.22: Number of Villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up / 45Figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in

Scaling Up Household Coverage / 46Figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 46Figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 47Figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 47Figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 48Figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48Figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48Figure 3.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States / 49Figure 3.31: NGP GPs, by State / 49Figure 3.32: NGP State-wise Status (%) / 50Figure 3.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats / 50Figure 3.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household)

Coverage (Year Wise) / 51

4. TSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES AT DISTRICT LEvEL: fINDINGS Of THE RAPID ASSESSMENTFigure 4.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking / 52Figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for

TSC Implementation (n=22) / 55Figure 4.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and

Capacity (n=22) / 58Figure 4.4: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating

Demand and Scaling Up (n=22) / 61Figure 4.5: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Technology Promotion and

Supply Chain (n=22) / 65Figure 4.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22) / 66Figure 4.7: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Financing and Incentives (n=22) / 68Figure 4.8: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22) / 71Figure 4.9: Finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22) / 72

Contents


8

List of Boxes

Box 1: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts / 17

Box 2: Nirmal Gram Puraskar / 25Box 3: Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim / 56Box 4: Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from kolhapur / 59Box 5: Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need / 60Box 6: Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District / 62Box 7: Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation:

A Case Study of Sirsa District / 63Box 8: An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience / 67Box 9: Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District / 71Box 10: Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachch Puraskar / 72

Numbers

1 lakh 100,0001 million 1,000,0001 crore 10,000,0001 billion 1,000,000,000

Currency

US$ 1 = INR 45.95 (April 2010 exchange rate)

9

Abbreviations

APL Above Poverty Line AWC Anganwadi Centre BDO Block Development OfficerBP Block Panchayat BPL Below Poverty LineBRGF Backward Regions Grant FundCEO Chief Executive Officer CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation CRSP Central Rural Sanitation ProgrammeDDWS Department of Drinking Water Supply DEE Department of Elementary Education DLM District Level MonitoringDPAP Drought Prone Areas ProgrammeDWSC District Water and Sanitation Committee DWSM District Water and Sanitation Mission GDP Gross Domestic ProductGP Gram Panchayat (village local self

government)HDI Human Development IndexHH Household ICDS Integrated Child Development SchemeIEC Information, Education and

Communication IHHL individual household latrine IPC Interpersonal CommunicationMDG Millennium Development GoalMIS Management Information System M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MPR Monthly Progress Report

NFHS National Family Health SurveyNGP Nirmal Gram Puraskar

(Clean Village Prize)NGO non-government organisation NRHM National Rural Health Mission NSS National Sample SurveyODF open defecation freeO&M Operation and Maintenance PC Production Centre PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRI Panchayati Raj Institution

(Local Government system)RGDWM Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission RSM Rural Sanitary Mart SHG Self Help GroupSLWM Solid and Liquid Waste Management SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

(Universal Education Campaign)SSHE School Sanitation and Hygiene

Education SWSM State Water and Sanitation MissionTSC Total Sanitation Campaign UNICEF United Nations International

Children’s Education Fund UT Union Territory WHO World Health OrganizationWSP Water and Sanitation Program ZP Zila Panchayat/Parishad

(district local government)


10

Glossary

(Above/Below) Poverty Line: To measure poverty, it is usual to look at the level of personal expenditure or income required to satisfy a minimum consumption level. The Planning Commission of the Government of India uses a food adequacy norm of 2,400 to 2,100 kilo calories per capita per day to define state-specific poverty lines separately for rural and urban areas. These poverty lines are then applied on India’s National Sample Survey Organisation’s household consumer expenditure distributions to estimate the proportion and number of poor at the state level.

Anganwadi: Pre-school or crèche, an initiative promoted under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) of the Government of India.

Nirmal Gram Puraskar (Clean village Prize): NGP is an incentive programme introduced by the Government of India that gives a cash prize to any local government that achieves community-wide total sanitation. More than a fiscal incentive, the award carries tremendous prestige as it is given by the Hon’ble President of India to block- and district-level winners and by high ranking state dignitaries to village-level winners.

Panchayati Raj Institutions: The term ‘Panchayat’ literally means ‘council of five (wise and respected leaders’) and ‘Raj’ means governance. Traditionally, these councils settled disputes between individuals and villages. Modern Indian government has adopted this traditional term as a name for its initiative to decentralise certain administrative functions to elected local bodies at village, block and district levels. It is called Gram Panchayat at the village level, Panchayat Samiti at the block level and Zila Parishad at the district level.

Information, Education, Communication: IEC is the term used to describe software activities that support and promote the provision of programme services and facilities, for example, media campaigns, capacity-building activities, community hygiene promotion sessions, and so on.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): The MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world’s main development challenges. These include:

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Goal 5: Improve maternal health Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Total Sanitation: A community-wide approach based on participatory principles which seeks to achieve not only 100 percent open defecation free (ODF) communities but also broader environmental sanitation objectives such as promotion of improved hygiene behaviours and solid/liquid waste management.

11

Executive Summary

The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) of the Government of India has been in operation for over a decade (1999 to date), and the Nirmal Gram Puraskar, a fiscal incentive programme that rewards local governments (Green Panchayats) that achieve total sanitation, has completed five years (2005 to date). The country has made significant progress in terms of coverage and outcomes. However, these achievements have been concentrated in a few states while others continue to lag significantly behind.

This report analyses primary and secondary data on the TSC to arrive at an understanding of the processes, outputs and outcomes at a national level and across the states; this is compared with the inputs which have gone into the programme. These indicators are then compared individually and in combination to benchmark the states, to understand the relative performance of the states. This benchmarking, based on a combination of eight indicators, is undertaken for both states and districts across the country.

The analysis is also useful in tracking the efficiency of the states in terms of time taken to achieve total sanitation (rate of acceleration of the programme) and the financial expenditure on achieving outcomes. It, then, extrapolates, based on current achievements, to understand when the various states would achieve the ultimate objective of full coverage.

Recognising that the success of a sanitation campaign is dependent on how sustainable the outcomes are, and that its sustainability depends on the quality of the processes adopted in mobilising communities, the study also undertakes a primary analysis of 22 sample districts (across 21 states) to understand the correlation between processes and outcomes. It identifies six qualitative indicators of the process of implementation at the district level, converts these into quantitative scores, and scores each of these districts on a process rating scale.

Comparing the process with the benchmarking outcomes clearly shows that there is a strong and positive correlation between the processes and the outcomes – wherever the combination of process indicators has been good, so are the outcomes. This has been found to be true even for each of the individual process indicators – they too have a strong and positive correlation with outcomes (except on technology).

On the basis of the secondary data analysis and primary study on processes, the report concludes and recommends that the districts that have performed well have done so under the same TSC guidelines and conditions – they have effectively used the processes in the true spirit of the TSC guidelines and managed to achieve the outcomes. All that the districts that are lagging behind have to do is adopt these processes to achieve better outcomes as well. In addition, the higher levels of government (state and national governments) can facilitate this process through strong monitoring which tracks these processes and sustainability of outcomes, to support the lagging districts/states in effectively implementing the TSC in the true spirit.


12

13

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

Open defecation is a traditional behaviour in rural India. This, along with the relative neglect of sanitation in terms of development priorities, was reflected in the country’s low sanitation coverage at the close of the 1990s when it was found that only one in five rural households had access to a toilet (Census 2001). This fact, combined with low awareness of improved hygiene behaviour, made the achievement of the goal of total sanitation a pressing challenge in rural India.

In response to this challenge, the Government of India launched the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in 1999 with the goal of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. The responsibility for delivering on programme goals rests with local governments (Panchayati Raj Institutions — PRIs) with significant involvement of communities. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies, providing financial and capacity-building support, and monitoring progress. To give a fillip to the TSC, the government introduced an innovative incentive programme known as Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) in 2003. The NGP offers a cash prize to motivate Gram Panchayats (GPs) to achieve total sanitation. In addition, the NGP is an attractive incentive as winners are felicitated by the President of India at the national level and by high-ranking dignitaries at the state level.

The TSC has recently completed a decade of implementation (1999-2009) and the NGP has completed five years of operation (2005-10). Since its launch, the programme framework of the TSC and NGP has been based on a common national guideline whereas implementation has been decentralised to the state and district levels. Although there is an undeniable upwards trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage, national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals. Therefore, this is an opportune time to assess the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state and district levels.

1.2 Purpose

To achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat (Clean India) within the TSC timeframe, there is need for a clear understanding of the processes that underpin scaling up, replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. The purpose of this report is to synthesise the wealth of information available through secondary sources such as the TSC and NGP online monitoring systems and primary surveys of select districts at different points on the performance curve, to understand the processes by which the national TSC guidelines are implemented at state and district levels and how these contribute to the outcomes achieved. The analysis will focus on the successes and challenges faced in implementing the TSC and NGP, identify gaps and lessons learnt, and recommend programmatic approaches through which these can be addressed.

The audience for this report includes policy-makers and implementers at national, state and district levels, and the broader sanitation and hygiene community.


14

1.3 Methodology

A three-step methodology was followed for this study, as can be seen from Figure 1.1, comprising literature review, and collection and analysis of secondary and primary data. Each of these steps of the methodology followed for this study is described in detail below.

1.3.1 Literature Review

The study team reviewed key documents related to the TSC and NGP implementation as well as previous studies on the rural sanitation sector in India. Previously, studies on these programmes have been mainly conducted by the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as WaterAid, TARU and Arghyam. These studies have involved different objectives and followed a variety of approaches for sampling and analysis, to develop the methodology and objectives for this assessment. A complete list of documents reviewed is given in the References at the end of this Report.

1.3.2 Secondary Data

The TSC and NGP have dedicated online monitoring systems1 which provide quantitative information on progress towards the overall programme goal of universal rural sanitation coverage. This includes information on programme components such as inputs (for example, resources invested in the programme), outputs (for example, the number of toilets built at household, school and pre-school levels), and outcomes (for example, the number of PRIs that have won the NGP). Although the programme component of process is not explicitly covered by the online monitoring system, this can be derived from the data available on the other components, for example, efficiency can be derived from the rate of increase in outputs over time.

figure 1.1: Study Methodology

1 The TSC online monitoring system can be accessed at www.ddws.nic.in and the NGP online monitoring system at http://nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in

Methodology

Quantitative analysis of TSC monitoring data

Study of sample districts

Literature review

Secondary data

Primary data

TSC status and trends over a decade

Benchmarking of state and district performance based on current

performance

Rating scale

Correlating implementation process with outcomes

15

For this study, data from each of these programme components have been taken from the online monitoring systems and two types of quantitative analyses have been undertaken based on this: a) analysis of the TSC status and trends in progress over the decade; and b) benchmarking of performance based on current status. Each of these quantitative analyses is explained in detail below.

a. Quantitative Analysis of TSC Status and Trends

Secondary data have been collected on each programme component – input, output, process and outcome – and the progress towards the overall goal of achieving universal sanitation coverage has been analysed. The results of these findings are presented in Chapter 3 of this report; a snapshot of the data indicators analysed under each programme component is shown in Table 1.1.

Introduction

Table 1.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC

Output

• Sanitationtarget achieved at national and state level

• %schoolsanitation target achieved

• %RSM/PCtarget achieved

• %SLWMtargetachieved

Outcome

• NumberofNGPwinners

• State-wise%ofNGP winners

• NumberofNGPvs total number of GPs

Process

• Accelerationrate of HH sanitation coverage

• Reachingthepoorest – ratio of BPL and APL HH coverage

• Reachingthebackward and drought-prone areas

• Successrate of NGP applications

Context

• No.ofHH, and institutions without access to sanitation

• Ruralpoverty (BPL distribution)

Input

• TSCfinancialallocation and expenditure

• AverageTSC project allocation per district

• TSCallocationand expenditure on software and hardware per district

• AverageTSCsoftware allocation and expenditure per HH

• AverageTSCexpenditure per BPL HH toilet, school and pre-school toilet

• Averageexpenditure per RSM/PC and SLWM

GOAL

• Progressmade towards universal rural sanitation coverage

HH: Household; BPL: Below Poverty Line; SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management; RSM: Rural Sanitary Mart; PC: Production Centre; APL: Above Poverty Line


16

b. Benchmarking State and District Performance on TSC

A quantitative model to benchmark state and district performance on the TSC has been developed which consists of a simple four-step process, explained in Box 1. This model comprises eight key performance indicators, each of which is assigned a weighted score. The maximum cumulative performance score that a state or district can achieve is 100 and the minimum is zero. On this basis, all states and districts have been divided into four colour-coded performance bands depending on the cumulative performance score achieved.

1.3.3 Primary Data

An analysis of the processes adopted by the districts was undertaken to understand the correlation between these and the final outcomes achieved by the districts. Districts, for this study, were selected across the performance spectrum, based on which an assessment of their processes was undertaken. These were then compared with their overall performance outcomes to understand how the processes influence outcomes.

a. Sampling

Purposive sampling was used for the selection of districts and stakeholders for key person interviews as detailed below.

Selection of Districts

A total of 22 districts across 21 states were selected for this study. The criteria for selection of districts included:

• Geographical spread: Districts were selected from the north, east, west, south and north-east regions of the country; and

• Differential performance on the TSC: Results of the quantitative benchmarking of district performance on the TSC were used to select districts at different points on the TSC performance curve.

The list of sample districts and states selected for this study is given in Table 1.4.

Selection of Stakeholders for Key Person Interviews

In the sample districts, criteria for stakeholder selection for interviews included:

• ShouldhaveparticipatedintheTSCprogrammeforatleastsixmonths;and• Shouldrepresentakeydecision-makerorimplementeratthedistrictorblocklevel.

b. Research Protocol

To ensure consistency in the assessment findings, a research protocol was used as the basis for conducting key stakeholder interviews in the sample districts selected for this study. This protocol

17

Box 1: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts

Introduction

<25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior

Step 1: Select indicators and collect data from TSC/NGP: For a balanced measurement across inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes, eight indicators have been selected from the TSC online monitoring system. This information is reported by the districts and states to the Department of Drinking Water Supply (DDWS) and is available in the public domain on the DDWS website (http://ddws.nic.in).

Step 2: Assign scores to each indicator: Each indicator was assigned a weighted score which specified the maximum and minimum range of marks. Two principles underlying the strategy for assigning weighted scores were:

• Higherprioritywasgiventooutcomesandprocessesrelativetoinputsandoutputs.Therefore,the number of NGP Panchayats is given more marks than the percentage TSC budget spent on toilets constructed; and

• Themaximumscorewascappedat100.

Table1.2: Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model – Indicators and Weighted Score

# Performance Indicator Type Weighted Score Max. Min.

1. %TSCbudgetspent Input 5 02. %householdtoiletstargetachieved Output 15 03. %schoolsanitationtargetachieved Output 10 04. Financial efficiency (cost per NGP community) Process 10 05. Average population per GP Process 10 06. Success rate of NGP applications Process 10 07. No. of NGP Panchayats Outcome 30 08. %NGPPanchayats Outcome 10 0

CUMULATIvE PERfORMANCE SCORE 100 0

Step 3: Sum up scores: This entails adding up individual scores on each indicator to arrive at a cumulative performance score out of a maximum of 100.

Step 4: Benchmark districts based on scores achieved: States and districts are ranked in descending order on the basis of the cumulative performance score achieved. The scores are divided into four colour-coded performance bands, as shown in Table 1.3. Table 1.3: Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands

Below Average Average Above Average Superior


18

Table 1.4: List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment

Geographical District State Performance Band Region (based on cumulative performance score on the benchmarking model)

North Sirsa Haryana Superior

Rewa Madhya Pradesh Above Average

Bikaner Rajasthan Average

Mainpuri Uttar Pradesh Below Average

Hamirpur Himachal Pradesh Below Average

Amritsar Punjab Below Average

South Shimoga Karnataka Superior

Virudhunagar Tamil Nadu Above Average

Kottayam Kerala Average

Srikakulam Andhra Pradesh Below Average

East Bardhaman West Bengal Superior

Surguja Chhattisgarh Above Average

Gumla Jharkhand Average

Begusarai Bihar Average

Dhenkanal Orissa Below Average

West Kolhapur Maharashtra Superior

Valsad Gujarat Above Average

Junagadh Gujarat Average

Akola Maharashtra Average

North East East Sikkim Sikkim Above Average

West Tripura Tripura Average

Jorhat Assam Below Average

comprised questions on six components that are considered essential for scaling up and sustaining the TSC, namely:

1. Strategy for TSC Implementation2. Institutional Structure and Capacity3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain5. Financing and Incentives 6. Monitoring

Key: <25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior

19

Each component is described in detail below.

Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation

The TSC guidelines provide a broad framework within which states and districts have the flexibility to devise their own strategies for programme implementation depending on the socio-economic and institutional context, terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. A strategy can signal priorities, assign roles and responsibilities, and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. Ensuring the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up.

Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity

Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. To effectively scale up and sustain TSC outcomes, institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Institutional frameworks should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. Capacity refers to the availability of skilled human resources for TSC implementation, budgetary allocations to effectively implement programme activities, an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC, ability to monitor programme progress, and make revisions as needed.

Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up

A programme approach consists of specific activities, their timing and sequence. The TSC guidelines advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives. Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity.

Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain

The TSC guidelines advocate informed technology choices and setting up of alternate supply channels such as Rural Sanitary Marts (RSMs). At the implementation level, technology promotion includes not only separate toilet components (for example, sanitary pans, pipes, traps, etc.) but also existing latrine technology options (for example, septic tank, ventilated double pit toilet, eco-sanitation, etc.). It also includes provision of masonry services for installation, and sanitary services for operation, maintenance and final disposal.

Component 5: Financing and Incentives

Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. This includes costs for activities under different programme components (for example, school sanitation and hygiene education, administration, etc.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated, released and spent. Incentives can be financial or non-financial, given upfront or post achievement.

Component 6: Monitoring

Large-scale sanitation programmes such as the TSC require an efficient monitoring system and ability to ensure that the results of monitoring are used to improve programme implementation. Monitoring should be carried out by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring should be collected from all levels, starting with the lowest.

Introduction


20

c. Rating Scale

The rating scale was devised to provide a quantitative score card to analyse the findings of the research protocol. In this scale, each component of the research protocol is further sub-divided into five dimensions which describe different field scenarios and carry one mark each. Therefore, each component carries five marks and the maximum score on the rating scale is 30 marks. The cumulative score on the rating scale is converted into a percentage. The scale is depicted in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5: Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes

Topic Max. Score Score Given

1 Strategy for TSC Implementation i. TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the 1 core group ii. A well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation 1 and monitoring plan exists iii. TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments 1iv. Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at 1 different levels v. TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit — community 1 level engagement, post-construction incentive, appropriate technology Sub-total 5

2 Institutional Structure and Capacity i. The nodal agency is functional and effective 1ii. A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district 1 level and is effective iii. Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block 1 levels (e.g., cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the programme effectively iv. The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments 1v. Village-level institutions are set up and are effective 1 Sub-total 5

3 Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up i. Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy 1ii. Implementation is phased 1iii. Demand creation depends on community mobilisation 1iv. Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised 1v. Strategy is implemented at scale 1 Sub-total 5

21

Topic Max. Score Score Given

SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management; IEC: Information, Education and Communication; BPL: Below Poverty Line; APL: Above Poverty Line; ODF: Open Defecation Free

4 Technology Promotion and Supply Chain i. Multiple technology options are promoted 1ii. Technology choices respond to community preferences and 1 are affordable iii. Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe 1iv. Products and services sourced are easily available 1v. Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction 1 Sub-total 5

5 financing and Incentives i. Additional instalments are asked for on time 1ii. There are no funding bottlenecks 1iii. Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term 1 achievement and long-term sustainability) iv. Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all 1 heads namely SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used) v. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to 1 perform optimally Sub-total 5

6 Monitoring i. Monitoring systems are available at the village level 1ii. Monitoring system exist for block and district levels 1iii. Monitoring system track both BPL and APL coverage accurately 1iv. Monitoring for usage exists 1v. Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly 1 Sub-total 5

TOTAL 30 TOTAL (%) 100

Introduction

1.4 Organisation of this Report

This report is divided into five chapters.

Chapter 1 is this introduction which provides the context and purpose of this study and details the methodology adopted for the study, including the research protocol and linked rating scale. It also introduces the TSC performance benchmarking model which was used as the basis for selecting the sample districts for this study.


22

Chapter 2 provides an in-depth overview of the TSC and NGP incentive programme, including key implementation principles, shifts in the programme guidelines over the past decade, and institutional arrangements. Following this overview, it details national and state-level trends in the performance on TSC and NGP, based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model introduced in the methodology.

Chapter 3 presents the findings of an analysis of secondary data from the online monitoring systems of the TSC and NGP. This is mainly quantitative data and analysis focuses on the linkages between inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes in terms of how they contribute towards the programme goal of universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012.

Chapter 4 presents the findings of the primary study which tracks processes with outcomes. Each dimension of the assessment framework is used to analyse the linkage between the dimensions (individual and cumulative) and outcomes achieved.

Chapter 5 provides overall conclusions and summarises the recommendations of this study.

23

2. Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign

2.1 Background

A broad definition of sanitation includes interventions for the safe management and disposal/re-use of excreta and solid and liquid waste. It includes both infrastructure (for example, latrines, compost pits) and behaviour (for example, improved hygiene practices, habit formation to switch from open to fixed point defecation).

Lack of adequate sanitation and the linked burden of disease take an immense toll on life in India. Children are particularly vulnerable (Murray and Lopez 1997); each day, an estimated 1,000 children under five die in the country because of diarrhoea alone, a preventable disease (WaterAid 2006). Prevalence of child under-nutrition in India (47 percent according to National Family Health Survey III, 2005-06) is among the highest in the world and nearly double that of Sub-Saharan Africa. Child under-nutrition, aggravated by diarrheal disease, is estimated to be responsible for 22 percent of the country’s burden of disease (World Bank 2004). Sanitation related illnesses in both children and adults deplete productivity and resources, ultimately contributing to deprivation. Disaggregating the impacts of sanitation by gender reveals that the privacy afforded by access to adequate sanitation facilities imparts a sense of dignity, especially to women and young girls. Access to safe sanitation in schools is also linked to continued education enrolment by young girls and teenage women, particularly at puberty (Bruijne et al 2007). Sanitation is, therefore, appropriately considered a policy priority in India and the next section describes the evolution of the policy response to this issue.

2.2 Evolution of the Policy framework for Rural Sanitation

The responsibility for provision of sanitation facilities in India is decentralised and primarily rests with local government bodies – GPs in rural areas and municipalities or corporations in urban areas. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies/guidelines, providing financial and capacity-building support and monitoring progress. In the central government, the Planning Commission, through Five Year Plans, guides investment in the sector by allocating funding for strategic priorities.

2.2.1 Pre-1986: Ad hoc Investments through five Year Plans

Rural sanitation did not feature on the investment horizon during the first five plan periods as reflected in its negligible funding share. However, it received prominence from the Sixth Plan (1980-85) onwards amid the launch of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in 1980. In addition, responsibility for rural sanitation at the central level was also shifted from the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation to the Rural Development Department.


24

2.2.2 Conventional Approach: Central Rural Sanitation Programme (1986-98)

In 1986, the Rural Development Department initiated India’s first national programme on rural sanitation, the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP). The CRSP interpreted sanitation as construction of household toilets, and focused on the promotion of a single technology model (double pit pour-flush toilets) through hardware subsidies to generate demand. The key issue of motivating behaviour change to end open defecation and use toilets was not addressed, contributing to the programme’s failure. Although more than Rs. 660 crore2 was invested and over 90 lakh3 latrines constructed, rural sanitation grew at just 1 percent annually throughout the 1990s and the Census of 2001 found that only 22 percent of rural households had access to toilets.

2.2.3 Sector Reforms: Total Sanitation Campaign (1999-2012)

In light of the relatively poor performance of the CRSP, the Government of India restructured the programme, leading to the launch of the TSC in 1999. A key learning that informed TSC design was that toilet construction does not automatically translate into toilet usage, and people must be motivated to end open defecation if rural sanitation outcomes are to be achieved. A second key learning was the recognition of the ‘public good’ dimensions of safe sanitation and the realisation that health outcomes will not be achieved unless the entire community adopts safe sanitation. Accordingly, the TSC introduced the concept of a “demand-driven, community-led approach to total sanitation” (DDWS 1999). This was further strengthened with the introduction of the NGP in 2003, which incentivised the achievement of collective outcomes in terms of 100 percent achievement of total sanitation by a GP. Key features of the TSC include:

• Acommunity-ledapproachwithfocusoncollectiveachievementoftotalsanitation;• FocusonInformation,EducationandCommunication(IEC)tomobiliseandmotivatecommunities

towards safe sanitation;• MinimumcapitalincentivesonlyforBelowPovertyLine(BPL)households,postconstruction

and usage;• Flexiblemenuoftechnologyoptions;• Developmentofasupplychaintomeetthedemandstimulatedatthecommunitylevel;and• Fiscalincentiveintheformofacashprize–NGP(Box2).

2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines

Since the launch of the TSC, the programme guidelines have been modified twice, once in 2004 and again in December 2007. In 2004, the revision in TSC guidelines followed a mid-term review of the programme. The revision led to a focus on sanitary arrangements, not merely on the construction of household toilets. The School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) component was strengthened; and the provision of toilets was extended to Anganwadi Centres (AWCs), all levels of schools (primary, middle, secondary, etc.) and all establishments of the GP. The Government of India sought to re-orient the focus of the sanitation programme to achieving the outcome of an open defecation free (ODF) environment. Thus, not only individual households but also communities, villages, and Panchayat governments started to be targeted.

2 For explanation of ‘crore’, refer to numbers on page 8.3 Ibid.

25

Box 2: Nirmal Gram Puraskar

The Nirmal Gram Puraskar of the Government of India, introduced in 2003, is an innovative programme that offers fiscal incentives in the form of a cash prize to local governments that achieve 100 percent sanitation, that is, they are 100 percent ODF and have tackled issues of solid and liquid waste management (SLWM). The amount of incentive is based on population as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Population-linked Incentives(All figures in Rs. 100,000)

Particulars Gram Panchayat Block District

Population Less 1000 2000 5000 10000 Up 50001 Up Above Criteria than to to to and to and to 10 1000 1999 4999 9999 above 50000 above 10 lakh lakh

PRIs 0.50 1.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 50.00

Individuals 0.10 0.20 0.30

Organisations other than PRI 0.20 0.35 0.50

Providing post-achievement incentives is a significant shift from the upfront subsidy promoted by conventional rural sanitation programmes. The NGP has elicited a tremendous response with the number of GPs winning this award going up from a mere 40 in 2005 to over 22,000 to date. The NGP helps to raise the status of the winning Panchayat, and create peer pressure among neighbouring Pancahyats as well as tough competition at all tiers of the administration.

Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply <http://nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in>

In 2007, the TSC guidelines were modified again to include an emphasis on developing community managed and ecologically safe environmental sanitation systems focusing on SLWM. Up to 10 percent of the project costs could now be used for meeting upfront capital costs incurred under the SLWM component. The IEC component was strengthened and the provision of a revolving fund was extended to community-based organisations, Above Poverty Line (APL) households and Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) centres. On account of rising input costs, the incentive provision for BPL families, to be given post construction and verification of toilet usage, was increased from Rs. 625 to a maximum of Rs. 2,500.

2.4 TSC Delivery Structure

The TSC operates through district projects of three to five years’ duration, jointly financed by central and state governments with contribution from beneficiary households (generally in the ratio of 65:25:15). At the district level, Zila Panchayats lead the implementation of the project – a District Water and Sanitation Mission (DWSM), headed by the Zila Panchayat, with Deputy Commissioners/

Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign


26

vill

age Gram Panchayat

(Motivators) Community

Institution building, mobilisation, facilitate construction of hardware, hygiene

education, monitoring, O&M

Blo

ck

Panchayat Samiti (Extension workers of government and

non-government organisations)

Institution building (e.g., GPs, Watsan committee), facilitate supply chains,

hygiene education, monitoring

Dis

tric

t Zila Panchayat – DWSM (and other government and

non-government institutions)

M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation; O&M: Operation and Maintenance

Stat

e State Government (Nodal Department)

Collectors/Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and other heads of departments as members, is set up. Similarly, at the block and the Panchayat levels, Panchayat Samitis and respective GPs are involved in the implementation of the TSC. The TSC delivery structure is shown in Figure 2.1.

figure 2.1: TSC Delivery Structure

Cen

tre Government of India

(Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Drinking Water Supply)

Funding, technical support, development of state action plan, inter-sectoral

coordination, training, M&E

Funding, technical support, M&E, training and inter-sectoral coordination

2.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels

2.5.1 TSC Performance at National Level

The TSC is currently being implemented at scale in 606 districts of 30 states/Union Territories (UTs). As can be seen from Figure 2.2, after sluggish progress throughout the 1980s and 1990s, rural sanitation coverage (individual household latrines) has nearly tripled from approximately 22 percent in 2001 to 61 percent in 2009 and 65 percent in 2010, post-TSC and -NGP.

Facilitate and support overall implementation, development of action plan,

inter-sectoral coordination, training, M&E

27

figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India

Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. Accessed in March 2010.

Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. Accessed in March 2010.

figure 2.3: NGP Winners (2005-09)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

02005

38 798

5,743

18,013

22,569

NGPs – annual

NGPs – cumulative20072006 2008 2009

Since its launch, the NGP has been very successful as a fiscal incentive for achievement of sanitation outcomes. The number of winners has gone up from approximately 40 in 2005 to 22,569 in 2009, as can be seen from Figure 2.3.

The number of NGPs in each state across the years is provided in Volume 2, Annex 34.

PERC

ENT

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1980

1988

1989

1990

1991

1993

1994

1996

1997

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

1980-90: International Drinking Water Supply & Sanitation Decade

1%4%

11%

3%

10% 11%14%

6%

17%21.9% 22.4% 23%

27%31%

38%45%

57%

61%

18%

1986-99: Central Rural Sanitation Programme

1999 onwards: Total Sanitation Campaign

2005 onwards:

Nirmal Gram Puraskar

65%



28

2.5.2 TSC Performance at State Level

Despite the undeniable upward trend at the national level, these aggregates disguise state-level disparities in performance on the TSC.

This section presents the performance of states on the TSC based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model, which tracks performance based on a mix of outcome, output, processes and input indicators, and, thereafter, ranks districts and states based on performance (as against alphabetically) (for more details of this model, see Box 1 on page 17). The performance of different states in terms of cumulative score is presented in Figure 2.4 and the scores achieved on constituent indicators are presented in the remainder of this section.

figure 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign?

100908070605040302010

0

DN Hav

eli

Bihar

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Pudu

cher

ry

Mizo

ram

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Man

ipur

Orissa

Karn

atak

a

Goa

Rajas

than

SikkimJ&

K

Nagala

nd

Gujar

at

Arun

acha

l P

Uttara

khan

d

Himac

hal P

Meg

halay

a

Jhar

khan

d

Harya

na

Assa

m

Tripu

ra

Tam

il Nad

u

Punj

ab

Uttar P

rade

sh

Chha

ttisg

arh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Mah

aras

htra

Kera

la

15 15 19 21 22 23 25

29

35 39 39 41 41 44 45 46 47 48

59 60 60 62 63 64 65

70 70

76 79

88

The detailed score for each indicator, along with the aggregate score for each state, and overall rank and score for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 1. The rank of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume 2, Annex 2 (rank wise) and Volume 2, Annex 3 (alphabetically).

a. Indicator 1 (Input): Percent TSC funds Spent

This indicator measures the financial investment in the TSC project, calculating the percentage of spend against total allocation (Figure 2.5).

b. Indicator 2 (Output): Percent Individual Household Latrine Target Achieved

This indicator measures an output – the percentage of individual household toilets constructed against the target (Figure 2.6).

PERC

ENT

Key: Performance Band <25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior

29

figure 2.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC funds?

figure 2.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the TSC Target?

150

100

50

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1 9 12 15 19 23 25 28 31 32 36 38 42 45 45 48 53 59 60 61

72 73 74

87 90 96 97 98 101

2 4 14 15 16 19 20 20 23 24 25 25 26 26 28 29 29

40 41 42 44 49 54 58 66 70 71 75 76

136

109

% TSC Budget Spent

% Household Latrines Achieved

Dadra

& N

agar

Hav

eli

Jhar

khan

d

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Man

ipur

Orissa

Tam

il Nad

u

Pudu

cher

ry

Rajas

than

Wes

t Ben

gal

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Karn

atak

a

Goa

Bihar

Chha

ttisg

arh

Gujar

at

Assa

m

Punj

ab

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttara

khan

d

Harya

na

Nagala

nd

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

Meg

halay

a

Mah

aras

htra

Uttar P

rade

sh

Mizo

ram

Kera

la

Dadra

& N

agar

Hav

eli

Uttara

khan

d

Mah

aras

htra

Punj

ab

Orissa

Chha

ttisg

arh

Man

ipur

Goa

Wes

t Ben

gal

Pudu

cher

ry

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Gujar

at

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Tam

il Nad

u

Bihar

Jhar

khan

d

Harya

na

Assa

m

Karn

atak

a

Uttar P

rade

sh

Meg

halay

a

Nagala

nd

Kera

la

Rajas

than

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Mizo

ram

Tripu

raSik

kimSik

kim

Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.


c. Indicator 3 (Output): Percent School Sanitation Target Achieved

This indicator measures an output – the percentage of school toilets constructed against the target (Figure 2.7).

d. Indicator 4 (Process): Success Rate of NGP Applications

The number of NGP applications has been increasingly geometrically, from 464 in 2005 to 13,956 in 2009. Simultaneously, the number of winners trails the number of applicants in any year. States (and districts) may put in as many applications, but the true test of outcome achievement is the number of NGP winners (Figure 2.8). By recognising and giving a higher weight to high success rate, the benchmarking model rewards process and a good internal monitoring system to evaluate ODF applications.

PERC

ENT

PERC

ENT



30

figure 2.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target?

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 0

25

44 47 51 51 55 55 59 61 66

77 80 87 90 90 91 91 93 94 94 94 95 97 98 99 100

100 10

8

% School Sanitation Achieved

Dadra

& N

agar

Hav

eli

Uttara

khan

d

Punj

ab

Pudu

cher

ry

Goa

Mah

aras

htra

Meg

halay

a

Assa

m

Tam

il Nad

u

Nagala

nd

Rajas

than

Chha

ttisg

arh

Man

ipur

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Kera

la

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Orissa

Harya

na

Bihar

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Karn

atak

a

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Tripu

ra

Uttar P

rade

sh

Sikkim

Mizo

ram

Gujar

at

figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level?

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 0 0

12

20 20 21 21 22 25 27 28 32 32 36 39 39 40 44 44 45 46 51

60 63 64 65 68

85

98

Success Rate in NGP Till Date

Goa

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Dadra

& N

agar

Hav

eli

Chha

ttisg

arh

Assa

m

Pudu

cher

ry

Bihar

Jhar

khan

d

Mizo

ram

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Gujar

at

Punj

ab

Nagala

nd

Rajas

than

Uttara

khan

d

Meg

halay

a

Uttar P

rade

sh

Harya

na

Mah

aras

htra

Tripu

ra

Orissa

Tam

il Nad

u

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Man

ipur

Karn

atak

aKe

rala

Sikkim



e. Indicator 5 (Process): Average Population per Gram Panchayat

The benchmarking model is not merely based on the number of NGP Gram Panchayats, but also factors such as the size of each GP and the corresponding level of effort required to make a GP Nirmal (Figure 2.9). Bonus points are given to the states with the most populous GPs – 10 points for those states where the average GP population is greater than 15,000; five points to states where the average GP population is above 5,000 but less than 15,000; and the balance states where the average GP population is below 5,000 receive a zero.

PERC

ENT

PERC

ENT

31

f. Indicator 6 (Process): financial Efficiency

This indicator measures return on investment by calculating the amount of TSC budget spent to make a Panchayat Nirmal. Therefore, it takes the figure for TSC spend to date and divides it by the number of NGPs winners by a state to date. To incentivise financial efficiency, the benchmarking model only awards bonus points to the top five most financially efficient states, while giving zero points to the remaining states (Figure 2.10).

figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States?

figure 2.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal?

40,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000

5,0000

800700600500400300200100

0

Average GP Population

financial Efficiency (Rs. in lakhs)

Meg

halay

a

Mah

aras

htra

Mah

aras

htra

Karn

atak

a

Rajas

than

Jhar

khan

d

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Gujar

at

Meg

halay

a

Orissa

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Mizo

ram

Uttara

khan

d

Tripu

ra

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Uttar P

rade

sh

Uttara

khan

d

Punj

ab

Tam

il Nad

u

Nagala

nd

Karn

atak

a

Bihar

Man

ipur

Harya

na

Harya

na

Wes

t Ben

gal

Assa

m

Orissa

Punj

ab

Kera

la

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Tripu

ra

Bihar

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Sikkim

Uttar P

rade

sh

Chha

ttisg

arh

Dadra

and

Nagar

Hav

eli

Man

ipur

Chha

ttisg

arh

Gujar

at

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Wes

t Ben

gal

Assa

m

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Tam

il Nad

u

Goa

Rajas

than

Sikkim

Mizo

ram

Nagala

nd

GoaKe

rala

Dadra

and

Nagar

Hav

eliPu

duch

erry

Pudu

cher

ry

Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in

Average Pop <5,000 Average Pop b/w 5,001 and 15,000

Average Pop >15,000


6 7 8 8 12 17 17 19 25 28 33 34 35 44 50 51 58 80 89 97 114 14

9

183

212

370

654

675



32

g. Indicator 7 (Outcome): Number of NGP Winners

This indicator measures the absolute number of NGP Panchayats out of the total number of GPs in a state. This is equal to the cumulative number of NGPs won by a state (Figure 2.11).

h. Indicator 8 (Outcome): Percentage of NGP Winners

The performance benchmarking model is designed to reward both absolute and percentage achievement in terms of NGP (Figure 2.12). Recognising and giving points to percentage NGP achievement helps to neutralise the ‘low base effect’. (Other things being equal, let us say State A has 50 GPs and State B has 500. Both states have been able to achieve 20 NGP Panchayats. Therefore, while the absolute number of NGP achievement is the same, State A is 40 percent NGP while State B is only 8 percent NGP. Therefore, the benchmarking model recognises this and is designed to reward both absolute and percentage achievement.).

The percentage of NGP winners of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume 2, Annex 36.

figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States?

9,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,000

0

0 0 0 2 12 14 24 31 50 63 96 113

National Average = 753

155

164

200

207

225

418

520

522

845

876

989

1,06

1

1,08

7

1,26

3

1,51

2

1,67

0

2,09

6

8,38

9

Goa

Meg

halay

a

Chha

ttisg

arh

Dadra

& N

agar

Hav

eli

Punj

ab

Karn

atak

a

Pudu

cher

ry

Tripu

ra

Kera

la

Man

ipur

Orissa

Harya

na

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Sikkim

Wes

t Ben

gal

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Bihar

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Assa

m

Rajas

than

Uttar P

rade

sh

Mizo

ram

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Nagala

nd

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Uttara

khan

d

Gujar

atTa

mil N

adu

Mah

aras

htra


figure 2.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across Different States?

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 7 11 12 15 16 16 17

30 33

79

96 99

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Uttar P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

Goa

Rajas

than

Gujar

at

Man

ipur

Bihar

Karn

atak

a

Dadra

& N

agar

Hav

eli

Orissa

Harya

na

Pudu

cher

ry

Mizo

ram

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Punj

ab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Tam

il Nad

u

Assa

m

Chha

ttisg

arh

Mah

aras

htra

Meg

halay

a

Jhar

khan

d

Wes

t Ben

gal

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Uttara

khan

d

Nagala

ndKe

rala

Sikkim


PERC

ENT

33

3. A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status

3.1 Introduction

This chapter analyses data from the online monitoring system of the TSC and NGP, a wealth of information at the national, state and district levels. The data have been accessed in March 2010 from the TSC and NGP Management Information System (MIS). This information is presented across six sections:

• Context in terms of the scale of the sanitation challenge. It provides information on the number of households and schools that lacked access to sanitation when the TSC was launched along with information on the socio-economic conditions of programme implementation;

• Programme inputs begin with the overall TSC budget and then focus on the average project expenditure per district. It also provides information on the allocation to project hardware and software components within the overall financial envelope;

• Outputs such as construction of toilets in households and schools;• Programme processes in terms of acceleration of scale-up, inclusion, success rate of NGP

applications, and rate of return;• Outcomes such as the number of NGP winners; and• Projections on when India will reach the TSC goal of universal sanitation coverage.

The specific indicators analysed under each component are detailed in Table 3.1.

3.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge

3.2.1 Number of Households and Institutions that Lack Access to Rural Sanitation

The TSC was launched with the objective of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. This meant the construction of about 12 crore4 toilets at the beginning of the campaign (1999) (Figure 3.1).

3.2.2 Rural Poverty

TSC envisaged financial support to the poorer households, defined by the BPL survey of the Government of India. In 1999, according to the TSC baseline survey, 47 percent of all households in India were classified as BPL (Figure 3.2).

4 120 million.


34

Output

• Sanitationtarget achieved at national and state level

• %schoolsanitation target achieved

• %RSM/PCtarget achieved

• %SLWMtargetachieved

Outcome

• NumberofNGPwinners

• State-wise%ofNGP winners

• NumberofNGPs vs total number of GPs

Process

• Accelerationrate of HH sanitation coverage

• Reachingthepoorest – ratio of BPL and APL HHs coverage

• Reachingthebackward and drought-prone areas

• Successrate of NGP applications

Table 3.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC

Context

• NoofHHs and institutions without access to sanitation

• Ruralpoverty (BPL distribution)

Input

• TSCfinancialallocation and expenditure

• AverageTSC project allocation per district

• TSCallocationand expenditure on software and hardware per district

• AverageTSCsoftware allocation and expenditure per household

• AverageTSCexpenditure per BPL household toilet, school and pre-school toilet

• Averageexpenditure per

RSM/PC and SLWM

GOAL

• Progressmade towards universal rural sanitation coverage

figure 3.1: TSC Objectives, 1999

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0IHHL Total

1,20

2

591

611

12 4

IHHL BPL

IHHL APL

School Toilets

Pre-school Toilet

x100

000

IHHL

3.3 Inputs

The TSC uses the resources of central and state governments and contributions from beneficiaries to promote access to sanitation facilities. This section looks at financial allocation and expenditure on the project till date.

35

figure 3.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey)

908070605040302010

0

Goa

PERC

ENT

Karn

atak

a

Assa

m

Punj

ab

Uttara

khan

d

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Rajas

than

Indi

a

Jhar

khan

d

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Orissa

Harya

na

Kera

la

Tripu

ra

Mah

aras

htra

Chha

ttisg

arh

Meg

halay

a

Uttar P

rade

sh

Tam

il Nad

u

Nagala

nd

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Bihar

Mizo

ram

Gujar

at

Sikkim

Man

ipur

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

See Volume 2, Annex 4 for calculations leading to this graph.

6

21 23 24 24

36

42 44 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 54 54 55 59 60 64 64 66 70 72 76

84 86

3.3.1 TSC financial Allocation and Expenditure

TSC allocation and expenditure – national

Under the TSC, the total commitment to date is approximately Rs. 17,866 crore (US$ 3,888 million), of which BPL households have committed Rs. 2,016 crore (US$ 438 million or 11.4 percent) (Figure 3.3). The allocation and expenditure is divided between the national government, state government and beneficiaries (BPL families). This is in addition to the additional expenditure by the BPL families5 and expenditure by the APL families, both of which are not captured by the online monitoring system of the TSC.


20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-Total

17,8

86

StateCentre Beneficiary

7,36

9

11,0

94

4,15

5

4,77

6

2,20

3

2,01

6

1,01

1

INR/

CRO

RES

figure 3.3: financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR, Crore)

A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status

AllocationExpenditure

5 BPL families have to contribute about Rs. 300 (US$ 6.5) to avail of the government’s support to construct a toilet; however, in practice, they may contribute a higher amount to construct a better quality of toilet.


36

TSC allocation and expenditure – per district, state wise

The unit for implementation of the TSC is the district. On an average, the allocation for implementing the TSC is Rs. 30 crore (US$ 6.6 million) per district, ranging from Rs. 4 crore in Arunachal Pradesh to Rs. 73 crore in Andhra Pradesh (Figure 3.4).


The TSC budget for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 7.

TSC hardware allocation and expenditure – per district, state wise

Splitting the average allocation by hardware and software at the district level shows that the average hardware allocation per district is Rs. 26 crore (US$ 5.7 million) while the expenditure is just over Rs. 11 crore (US$ 2.4 million) which is 42 percent (Figure 3.5). Only two or three states have been able to show consistency in using hardware funds; most others exhibit low absorption capacity.

figure 3.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR, Crore)80 –

70 –

60 –

50 –

40 –

30 –

20 –

10 –

0 –

INR/

CRO

RES

4 4 5 5 7 9 11 11 11 12 15 15 18 19

23 25 26

30 30 31 31 32

37 38 38

44

50 52

73

Goa

Karn

atak

a

Assa

m

Punj

ab

Uttar P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Rajas

than

Indi

a

Jhar

khan

d

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Orissa

Harya

na

Kera

laTri

pura

Mah

aras

htra

Chha

ttisg

arh

Meg

halay

a

Uttara

khan

d

Tam

il Nad

u

Nagala

nd

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Bihar

Mizo

ram

Gujar

at

Sikkim

Man

ipur

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

1126

figure 3.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore)70 –

60 –

50 –

40 –

30 –

20 –

10 –

0 –

INR/

CRO

RES

3 4 4 62

75

901

9 10 10 12 13 13 13 16

26

10

23

911

1716 17

20 21 22

26 27 27 28

31 31

35 37

44 46

6527

10 8

5

8 6

1 1 2 2 3 3

97Nag

aland

Indi

aTa

mil N

adu

Uttrak

hand

Orissa

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Mah

aras

htra

Meg

halay

a

Bihar

Wes

t Ben

gal

Punj

ab

Tripu

ra

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Chha

ttisg

arh

Uttar P

rade

sh

Kera

la

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Assa

m

Harya

na

Karn

atak

a

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Goa

Rajas

than

Sikkim

Man

ipur

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Gujar

at


Hardware allocation per district Hardware expenditure per district

37

TSC software allocation and expenditure – per district, state wise

The average software allocation is Rs. 4 crore (US$ 0.7 million) with corresponding expenditure being recorded as just Rs. 1.1 crore (US$ 0.24 million) which translates into 32 percent against the average allocation (Figure 3.6).

Average software allocation per district Average software expenditure per district


TSC software allocation and expenditure – per household, state wise

The average software allocation per household is Rs. 181 (US$ 4) per household while average software expenditure is Rs. 102 (US$ 2.5) (Figure 3.7).


figure 3.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) 8.0 –

7.0 –

6.0 –

5.0 –

4.0 –

3.0 –

2.0 –

1.0 –

0.0 –

INR/

CRO

RES

.5 .2.8 .7 .8

.4.9

.31.

0.3

1.1

.51.

4.6

1.6

1.0

2.4

.22.

41.

52.

7.6

2.8

1.4

3.2

1.5

3.5

.93.

61.

13.

7

3.7

1.2

4.1

1.2

4.4

.75.

3.9

5.3

2.5

5.6

1.7

5.9

1.9

6.6

.97.

01.

9

Goa

Karn

atak

a

Indi

a

Harya

na

Mah

aras

htra

Gujar

at

Rajas

than

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Chha

ttisg

arh

Sikkim

Tripu

ra

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Jhar

khan

dBih

ar

Meg

halay

a

Punj

ab

Uttar P

rade

sh

Uttara

khan

d

Tam

il Nad

u

Orissa

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Mizo

ram

Assa

m

Nagala

nd

Man

ipur

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Kera

la

1.7

.4

2.2

.42.

31.

2

1.9

1.0

1.1

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Himac

hal P

rade

shJh

arkh

and

Gujar

at

Man

ipur

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Orissa

Kera

la

Karn

atak

a

Meg

halay

a

Sikkim

Rajas

than

Bihar

Indi

a

Nagala

nd Goa

Mah

aras

htra

Harya

na

Punj

ab

Uttara

khan

d

Chha

ttisg

arh

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Mizo

ram

Wes

t Ben

gal

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Uttar P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

Tam

il Nad

u

Assa

m

Software allocation per household Average expenditure household

figure 3.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR)


2500 –

2000 –

1500 –

1000 –

500 –

0 –

INR

2439

114

74 123

54 125

70 152

68 153

78 163

130

165

92 170

98 171

117

172

102

178

142

179

159

181

102 21

118

324

113

2 257

142 26

718

1 276

155 28

210

6 286

144 29

516

314

194 36

368

039

819

472

509

578 31

319

3

588

950

71881

6


38

TSC hardware expenditure – per BPL household, state wise

The TSC provides financial support (post-construction incentives) for BPL households (APL households are mobilised to invest on their own to construct toilets). In this context, the average expenditure per BPL household toilets is Rs. 1,274 (US$ 28) (Figure 3.8).


TSC hardware expenditure – per school sanitation facility, state wise

The average school toilet expenditure is Rs. 17,320 (US$ 384) (Figure 3.9).


figure 3.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR)

4,000 –

3,500 –

3,000 –

2,500 –

2,000 –

1,500 –

1,000 –

500 –

0 –

INR

Rajas

than Goa

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Chha

ttisg

arh

Sikkim

Kera

la

Mizo

ram

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Uttar P

rade

sh

Man

ipur

Orissa

Karn

atak

a

Uttara

khan

d

Assa

mNag

aland

Tam

il Nad

u

Harya

na

Bihar

Tripu

ra

Indi

a

Meg

halay

a

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Wes

t Ben

gal

Mah

aras

htra

Punj

ab

Gujar

at

156 34

1 610 90

7

912

947

1,01

2

1,01

9

1,08

1

1,08

5

1,09

1

1,12

3

1,14

6

1,15

5

1,17

1

1,19

0

1,27

4

1,30

7

1,38

9

1,42

5

1,47

2

1,49

1

1,56

3

1,59

0

1,77

9

1,88

9 2,29

9

2,30

1

3,33

8

figure 3.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR)

30,000 –

25,000 –

20,000 –

15,000 –

10,000 –

5,000 –

0 –

INR

Karn

atak

a

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jhar

khan

d

Uttar P

rade

sh

Uttara

khan

d

Meg

halay

a

Bihar

Mizo

ram

Kera

la

Indi

a

Sikkim

Harya

na

Rajas

than

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Mah

aras

htra

Assa

mTa

mil N

adu

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Wes

t Ben

gal

Tripu

ra

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Nagala

ndGoa

Gujar

at

Man

ipur

Orissa

Punj

ab

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

5,88

4

6,02

0

12,6

03

12,9

91

15,4

37

15,4

92

15,7

21

15,9

81

16,2

21

17,3

20

17,4

52

17,4

73

18,4

43

18,7

56

19,0

20

19,2

77

19,3

14

19,4

07

19,4

98

19,5

20

19,8

56

20,0

78

20,0

98

20,1

48

20,2

02

20,5

29

20,9

79 23,9

49

25,8

88

39

TSC hardware expenditure – per Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation facility, state wise

The expenditure on pre-school toilet (Aganwadi) is Rs. 4,684 (US$ 104) (Figure 3.10).


TSC hardware expenditure – per RSM/Production Centre (PC), state wise

The average district expenditure on setting up RSMs/PCs is Rs. 64,854 (US$ 1,141) (Figure 3.11).


Sikkim

Mad

hya P

rade

shTa

mil N

adu

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Meg

halay

a

Jhar

khan

d

Kera

la

Man

ipur

Uttara

khan

d

Chha

ttish

garh

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

Gujar

atIn

dia

Uttar P

rade

sh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mah

aras

htra

Wes

t Ben

gal

Harya

na

Orissa

Rajas

than

Nagala

nd

Mizo

ram

Assa

m

Punj

ab

Bihar

Goa

Karn

atak

a

5,00,000 –

4,50,000 –

4,00,000 –

3,50,000 –

3,00,000 –

2,50,000 –

2,00,000 –

1,50,000 –

1,00,000 –

50,000 –

0 –

INR

0 0 0 0 13,5

90

20,1

35

30,0

87

39,1

22

41,1

62

41,4

80

54,1

92

54,5

99

64,8

54

76,4

01

76,7

00

77,3

46 1,13

,673

1,18

,003

1,51

,291

1,54

,946

1,56

,029

1,62

,700

2,13

,931

2,19

,167

2,19

,600

2,62

,000

2,70

,273

2,84

,000

4,68

,750

figure 3.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR)M

adhy

a Pra

desh

Mizo

ram

Nagala

ndGoa

Bihar

Man

ipur

Uttar P

rade

shJa

mm

u Ka

shm

ir

Tripu

ra

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Meg

halay

a

Tam

il Nad

u

Uttara

khan

d

Chha

ttisg

arh

Indi

a

Assa

mW

est B

enga

l

Gujar

at

Rajas

than

Jhar

khan

d

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Mah

aras

htra

Sikkim

Orissa

Harya

na

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Kera

la

Punj

ab

Karn

atak

a

30,000 –

25,000 –

20,000 –

15,000 –

10,000 –

5,000 –

0 –

INR

483 2,

869

3,03

0

3,21

7

3,39

8

3,67

8

4,20

9

4,29

3

4,34

0

4,52

3

4,66

2

4,68

2

4,68

4

4,73

6

4,77

6

4,79

1

4,81

1

4,81

5

4,82

9

4,92

1

5,23

0

5,34

2

5,48

9

5,60

0

5,68

2

5,97

9

6,44

7 9,61

5

25,2

26

figure 3.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR)



40

1,400 –

1,200 –

1,000 –

800 –

600 –

400 –

200 –

0 –

TSC expenditure on SLWM, state wise

The average district expenditure on SLWM initiatives is Rs. 40,089 (US$ 890) (Figure 3.12).


3.4 Outputs

The outputs of the TSC in terms of toilets constructed in households, schools and pre-schools, and progress in terms of the number of RSMs set up and SLWM works undertaken is presented here.

3.4.1 Toilets Constructed in Households, Schools and Pre-schools

Under TSC, more than 6.43 crore toilets have been constructed – 3.48 crore BPL toilets, and 2.95 crore APL toilets (Figure 3.13).

Target Progress

figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR)Nag

aland

Harya

naM

anip

ur

Mah

aras

htra

Kera

la

Mizo

ram

Chha

ttish

garh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Indi

a

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Tam

il Nad

u

Sikkim

Tripu

ra

Orissa

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Uttar P

rade

sh

Rajas

than

Karn

atak

a

Gujar

at

Punj

ab

Bihar

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Goa

Assa

m

Meg

halay

a

Wes

t Ben

gal

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttrak

hand

16,00,000 –

14,00,000 –

12,00,000 –

10,00,000 –

8,00,000 –

6,00,000 –

4,00,000 –

2,00,000 –

0 –

INR

0 0 0 0 0 745

3,23

6

4,92

1

6,03

2

6,64

4

7,00

3

8,73

9

20,8

41

27,

098

27,3

01

32,

588

33,7

56

34,

784

35,

091

36,

591

39,

359

40,

089

46,

458

81,

207

126

,367

148

,750

280

,948

535,

429

1,4

94,3

33

figure 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative)

IHHL Total

IHHL BPL

IHHL APL

School Toilets

Pre-school Toilets

Community Toilets

1,20

1.7

643.

3

591.

0

348.

2 610.

7

295.

1

11.9

7

4.4

0.3

3.16

0.18

9.73

x100

000

41

More than 5.5 crore household toilets still need to be constructed – 3.1 crore APL and 2.4 crore BPL. Currently, India, on an average, constructs 29,247 toilets per day. However, India needs to construct more than 76,498 household toilets per day in the next two years to achieve 100 percent coverage which means doubling its efforts (Figure 3.14).

Construction of IHHL under TSC – current and required pace

See Volume 2, Annex16 for calculations leading to this graph.

Current construction capacity per day Constructioncapacityneededperdaytoreach100%coverageby2012

Coverage of IHHL under TSC

There has been 54 percent progress against the target for household sanitation – 59 percent among BPL households and 48 percent among APL households (Figure 3.15).


figure 3.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace - Current and Required

100%–

90%–

80%–

70%–

60%–

50%–

40%–

30%–

20%–

10%–

0%–

RATE

OF

CON

STRU

CTIO

N P

ER D

AY

Goa

Wes

t Ben

gal

Assa

m

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Rajas

than

Indi

a

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jhar

khan

dM

adhy

a Pra

desh

Meg

halay

a

Uttar P

rade

sh

Orissa

Harya

na

Uttara

khan

dPu

njab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Mah

aras

htra

Man

ipur

Nagala

nd

Karn

atak

a

Tripu

ra

Tam

il Nad

u

Bihar

Sikkim

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mizo

ram

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Kera

la

Gujar

at

193

5 23 26 115

738

742

25 32 80 24 266

450

2,13

8

80 949

1,28

8

1,42

9

888

789

1,30

0

3,10

6

1,19

9

6,12

5

1,82

612

,30611

,470

6,15

5

5,91

4

5,45

9

5,34

2

5,08

9

4,08

5

3,55

1

3,47

93,32

9

3,10

9

2,52

0

1,51

8

757

659

627

33025

3

186

135

103

87

25

16

2

00

1,09

9

1,98

9

2,32

4

76,4

9829

,247

120 –

100 –

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

PERC

ENT

Assa

m

Mah

aras

htra

Tam

il Nad

u

Jhar

khan

d

Harya

na

Sikkim

Punj

abAn

dhra

Prad

esh

Goa

Rajas

than

Mizo

ram

Tripu

ra

Meg

halay

a

Karn

atak

a

Uttara

khan

d

Gujar

at

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Chha

ttisg

arh

Orissa

Wes

t Ben

gal

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttar P

rade

sh

Kera

la

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Bihar

Nagala

nd

Man

ipur

Indi

a

9

15

20 23 26

31 31 32 36 38

45 46 48

59 59 60 62

72 73 74

87 91

97 97 98 102 10

9

54 54

figure 3.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC, by State



42

The IHHL coverage for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 18.

Coverage of APL IHHL under TSC


Coverage of BPL IHHL under TSC

figure 3.16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC

140 –

120 –

100 –

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

PERC

ENT

Bihar

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Goa

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Tripu

ra

Kera

la

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Mah

aras

htra

Gujar

at

Rajas

than

Mizo

ram

Punj

ab

Assa

m

Uttara

khan

dIn

dia

Himac

hal P

rade

shHar

yana

Karn

atak

a

Chha

ttisg

arh

Tam

il Nad

u

Man

ipur

Meg

halay

a

Sikkim

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Uttar P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Orissa

Nagala

nd

Wes

t Ben

gal

6 7 9 10 14 14

20

29

39 41 44 46 48 50 51 52 54 58 60 64 65

90 93 97 97 98 99 102

128

figure 3.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC


120 –

100 –

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

PERC

ENT

Punj

ab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

hTa

mil N

adu

Rajas

than

Harya

na

SikkimIndi

aUtta

r Pra

desh

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Mizo

ram

Tripu

ra

Bihar

Karn

atak

a

Uttara

khan

d

GoaW

est B

enga

l

Orissa

Nagala

nd

Gujar

at

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Mah

aras

htra

Kera

la

Meg

halay

a

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Assa

m

Man

ipur

Chha

ttisg

arh

7

24 24 24 26 27 28 31

36

45 46 49 51 53 57 59 60 64

71

80 83 86 90 92

96 97 97 99

113

43

Coverage of school sanitation under TSC



figure 3.18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

87 90 90 91 91 93 94 94 95 98 98 99 99 100

100 10

8

Meg

halay

a

Assa

m

Mah

aras

htra

Nagala

nd

Rajas

than

Tam

il Nad

u

Man

ipur

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Indi

a

Harya

na

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Orissa

Kera

la

Bihar

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Karn

atak

a

Uttara

khan

d

Uttar P

rade

sh

Mizo

ram

Goa

Punj

ab

Tripu

ra

Sikkim

Gujar

at

26

46 49 51 53 55 55 59 61 66

78 80 81

Comparison of coverage of IHHL and school sanitation under TSC

Figure 3.19 shows the coverage of school sanitation vis-à-vis household sanitation coverage.

figure 3.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Meg

halay

a

Assa

m

Mah

aras

htra

Nagala

nd

Rajas

than

Tam

il Nad

u

Man

ipur

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Indi

a

Harya

na

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Orissa

Kera

la

Bihar

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Karn

atak

a

Uttara

khan

d

Uttar P

rade

sh

Mizo

ram

Goa

Punj

ab

Tripu

ra

Sikkim

Gujar

at

School toilet progress IHHL progress


PERC

ENT

PERC

ENT

26

3146

3149

951

7353

9155

1555

2059

4861

7466

7838

80 81

23

5487

6290 90

36

9159

91 97 9359

9460

9472

9554

98 9897

4598 99 10

2 109

108

9946

87

100

100

32 26


44

figure 3.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC

140120100

80604020

0

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Harya

naGoa

Assa

m

Kera

la

Bihar

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Chha

ttisg

arh

Meg

halay

a

Rajas

than

Tam

il Nad

u

Man

ipur

Nagala

nd

Gujar

at

Uttara

khan

d

Indi

a

Karn

atak

a

Punj

ab

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Mah

aras

htra

Jhar

khan

d

Orissa

Mizo

ram

Wes

t Ben

gal

Tripu

ra

Uttar P

rade

sh

Mad

hya P

rade

shGuj

arat

8 11 15 15 16 18

32 33 34 35 35 37

46

61

72 73 76 79 85 86 86 92 94 95 99 100

100

122

122

Coverage of Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation under TSC


Establishment of RSMs/PCs under TSC

The TSC has sanctioned 4,191 RSMs and 139 PCs; overall, 5,214 RSMs and 3,046 PCs have been set up across the country (Figure 3.21).


figure 3.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target

200018001600140012001000

800600400200

0

Goa

Nagala

nd

Assa

m

Mizo

ram

Man

ipur

Indi

a

Sikkim

Rajas

than

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Punj

ab

Karn

atak

a

Jhar

khan

d

Meg

halay

a

Chha

ttisg

arh

Bihar

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttar P

rade

sh

Orissa

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Kera

la

Gujar

at

Uttara

khan

d

Tam

il Nad

u

Mah

aras

htra

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Harya

naTri

pura

0 0 0 9 11 13 14 31 36 44 57 68 72 76 77 88 106

122

152

157

191

200 29

4

302

346

371 49

3

936

1,84

2

PERC

ENT

45

figure 3.22: Number of villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up

1800016000140001200010000

8000600040002000

0

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Bihar

Karn

atak

a

Goa

Uttara

khan

d

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Nagala

nd

Kera

la

Chha

ttisg

arh

Sikkim

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Rajas

than

Mizo

ram

Assa

m

Gujar

at

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Wes

t Ben

gal

Mah

aras

htra

Meg

halay

a

Tam

il Nad

u

Harya

na

Punj

ab

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Man

ipur

Orissa

Tripu

ra

Uttar P

rade

shIn

dia

0 0 0 4 9 11 15 15 44 45 51 98 105

143

208

212

312

385

548

652

699

842

1,24

5

1,64

5

1,68

8

2,10

1

2,76

3

3,22

3

17,0

63

WO

RK/R

S TA

KEN

UP


3.4.2 Progress in Undertaking SLWM Works

The SLWM component has been initiated in only in 17,063 villages so far (Figure 3.22).

3.5 Process

Process analysis explores the performance of the states’ efficiency and priority which is measured against acceleration rate, inclusiveness and effectiveness of the scaling up coverage.

3.5.1 Acceleration Rate of Household Sanitation

An acceleration rate scale has been developed to measure the extent of coverage achieved in a specified period of time. In this regard, the states have been ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 based on the IHHL coverage and the time taken to achieve that coverage. The following formula has been used to calculate this coverage:

Acceleration Rate Scale (0-10) = Household Sanitation Coverage Achieved under TSC X 10

Average time taken*

* The time taken by each district from the sanction date is averaged at state and country levels

On the acceleration rate scale, India scores 5.1 in reaching the TSC target (Figure 3.23) while Himachal Pradesh stands out as the most efficient state in achieving the maximum acceleration.



46

figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in Scaling Up Household Coverage

9876543210

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Nagala

nd

Karn

atak

a

Man

ipur

Mizo

ram

Indi

a

Kera

la

Uttara

khan

d

Uttar P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

Sikkim

Wes

t Ben

gal

Goa

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Bihar

Orissa

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Rajas

than

Tam

il Nad

u

Punj

ab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Harya

na

Assa

m

Meg

halay

a

Mah

aras

htra

Gujar

at

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

1.0 1.4 1.

8 2.0

2.0

2.0

2.1 2.3 2.5 3.

0 3.3

3.3 3.7 4.0

4.1

4.2 4.5 5.

0

5.0

5.1

5.1

5.2 5.6

5.7 6.

2 6.6 7.0

7.1

8.3

ACC

ELER

ATI

ON

RA

TE S

CALE



3.5.2 Reaching the Poorest

figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement

140120100

80604020

0

Man

ipur

Jhar

khan

d

Tam

il Nad

u

Meg

halay

a

Orissa

Gujar

at

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Karn

atak

a

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Punj

ab

Uttara

khan

d

Goa

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Chha

ttisg

arh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Bihar

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Harya

na

Assa

m

Indi

a

Tripu

ra

Rajas

than

Mah

aras

htra

Mizo

ram

Nagala

nd

Uttar P

rade

sh

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Kera

laSik

kim

14

754

247

2498

24 29 2610

2714

2841

316

369

2046 44 4645 51

3953 52 4857 60 58 6451

71 6580

90 8393 86

64

9790 9250

97 96 99 102

97 97

113

99

128

APL IHHL progress BPL IHHL progress

49

59 60

In most states, the ratio of the BPL and APL is about 1, indicating equal importance to both groups in mobilising their commitment for adoption of toilet facilities. However, some states have given more importance to BPL. States showing a ratio more than 1 have placed higher priority on BPL families. Overall, India has accorded higher priority to BPL household sanitation (Figure 3.25).

PERC

ENT

47



figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement

7.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0

Punj

ab

Harya

na

Chha

ttisg

arh

Meg

halay

a

Tripu

ra

Uttar P

rade

sh

Man

ipur

Mah

aras

htra

Goa

Rajas

than

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Kera

la

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Assa

m

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Sikkim

Orissa

Gujar

at

Karn

atak

a

Bihar

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Uttara

khan

d

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mizo

ram

Tam

il Nad

u

Indi

a

Jhar

khan

dNag

aland

0.2 0.4

0.5 0.7

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.4 1.

8

1.9 2.

3 2.6

3.6

4.8

6.2

RATI

O

figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGf Districts and Non-BRGf Districts

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Bihar

Karn

atak

a

Tam

il Nad

u

Chha

ttisg

arh

Punj

ab

Man

ipur

Orissa

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Harya

na

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttara

khan

d

Wes

t Ben

gal

Rajas

than

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Mah

aras

htra

Kera

la

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Indi

a

Mizo

ram

Assa

m

Gujar

at

Sikkim

Meg

halay

a

Nagala

nd

Uttar P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

33

2254

4636

5282

5838

5933

6269

6272

6371 65

47

100

6757

68 7266 6859

71 66 71 7472

84 80 75 8371

8576

8666

8910

089

70

100

94 9588

97 99 100

100

100

100

100

3.5.3 Reaching Backward and Drought Prone Regions

A comparative analysis of household sanitation coverage and NGP coverage (against the number of total GPs) in backward and drought-prone regions has been carried out. The districts covered under the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) and Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) were analysed in comparison with non-BRGF and -DPAP districts (Figures 3.26, 3.27, 3.28 and 3.29).

IHHL coverage in BRGF districts IHHL coverage in non-BRGF districts

In the context of NGP coverage, the non-BRGF districts show better coverage but the BRGF districts in states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and Gujarat have better access comparatively.


PERC

ENT


48

figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGf Districts and Non-BRGf Districts120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Bihar

Indi

a

Man

ipur

Uttar P

rade

sh

Meg

halay

a

Mizo

ram

Tripu

ra

Nagala

nd

Punj

ab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Tam

il Nad

u

Rajas

than

Chha

ttisg

arh

Mah

aras

htra

Assa

m

Jhar

khan

d

Gujar

at

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Harya

na

Karn

atak

a

Uttara

khan

d

Kera

la

Orissa

Wes

t Ben

gal

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Sikkim

3 00 1 0 0 0

7 1 3 1 1 1 1 120

1 5 2 2 3 311

40

8 6 1 6 6 79 6 8 820 15

4215 18 16

716

7316

85

22

3421

3814

100

94 100

1251

NGP coverage in BRGF districts NGP coverage in non-BRGF districts

figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts 120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Bihar

Meg

halay

a

Tam

il Nad

u

Jhar

khan

d

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Wes

t Ben

gal

Orissa

Punj

ab

Harya

na

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mah

aras

htra

Rajas

than

Indi

a

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttara

khan

d

Kera

la

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Gujar

at

Mizo

ram

Assa

m

Nagala

nd

Sikkim

Karn

atak

a

Man

ipur

Uttar P

rade

sh

Tripu

ra

22

33 35 39 3545

54 5236

590

60 65 650

6758

670

63 680

69 7168 7036

7465

83 7975

080 73 80

081 86 82

6484

090

62

100

94 9687

099 10

0

0 0

100

0

Average IHHL coverage in DPAP districts Average IHHL coverage in non-DPAP districts

figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Assa

m

Chha

ttisg

arh

Indi

a

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mizo

ram

Gujar

at

Man

ipur

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Tam

il Nad

u

Punj

ab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Wes

t Ben

gal

Bihar

Uttara

khan

d

Karn

atak

a

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Jhar

khan

d

Nagala

nd

Orissa

Tripu

ra

Mah

aras

htra

Rajas

than

Meg

halay

a

Kera

la

Uttar P

rade

sh

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Harya

na

Sikkim

1 00 1 0 0 11 1 2 0 3 1 3 0 3 2 3 6 0 5 7 6 45 7 6 8 5 099

011

016

2416

519 17 21 20 21 25

86

27 296 0

54

100

0 0

5720

NGP coverage in DPAP districts NGP coverage in non-DPAP districts




PERC

ENT

PERC

ENT

PERC

ENT

49



3.5.4 Success Rate in NGP Applications

A comparison of the number of awards and the number of applications year wise provides the success rate of the applications (Figure 3.30). In total, only 40 percent of the applicants won the award. This may be due to a weak monitoring system at district and state levels.

figure 3.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

39 40 40 43 44 45 46 51

60 63 64 65 68

85

100

Mizo

ram

Punj

ab

Jhar

khan

d

Utta

r Pra

desh

And

hra P

rade

sh

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Raja

sthan

Uttr

akha

nd

Nag

aland

Guj

arat

Oris

sa

Meg

halay

a

Trip

ura

Harya

na

Mah

aras

htra

Aru

nach

al Pr

ades

h

Man

ipur

Tam

il Nad

u

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Indi

a

Kar

nata

ka

Chh

attis

garh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Ker

ala

Bihar

Assa

m

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Sikk

im

12

19 20 20 21 22 25 27 28 32 32 36 39

3.6 Outcomes

The NGP provides a context for capturing the elimination of open defecation at the household level but also for assessing related sanitation issues at the community level. The receipt of NGP at the national level is a good indicator for measuring the achievement of total sanitation status.

3.6.1 Number of NGP Winners

At the national level, 22,618 NGPs had been awarded by 2009. More than 22,443 GPs (Figure 3.31), 165 blocks, 10 districts, and one state have won the award so far. Sikkim is the first state to have achieved Nirmal status with 100 percent access to sanitation facilities in homes and institutions.

figure 3.31: NGP GPs, by State

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 225

418

520

521

845

870

989

1,04

1

1,08

7

1,13

2

1,51

2

1,67

0

2,09

7

8,38

7

22,4

43

Man

ipur

Oris

sa

Har

yana

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Sikk

im

Wes

t Ben

gal

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Bih

ar

And

hra P

rade

sh

Assa

m

Raja

sthan

Utta

r Pra

desh

Mizo

ram

Jhar

khan

d

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Nag

aland

Utta

rakh

and

Guj

arat

Meg

halay

a

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Tam

il Nad

u

Punj

ab

Chha

ttisg

arh

Mah

aras

htra

Trip

ura

Ker

ala

Kar

nata

ka

Indi

a

2 12 14 24 31 50 63 96 113

155

164

198

207

NO

. OF

NG

Ps


PERC

ENT


50

figure 3.32: NGP State-wise Status (%)

figure 3.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

5.8

6.2

6.6 9.2

10.9

12.1

15.0

16.0

16.1

16.6 30

.0

31.9

79.4 95

.1

100.

0

Man

ipur

Orissa

Karn

atak

a

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Mizo

ram

Harya

na

Punj

ab

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Assa

m

Chha

ttisg

arh

Tam

il Nad

u

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Uttara

khan

d

Mah

aras

htra

Meg

halay

a

Jhar

khan

d

Wes

t Ben

gal

Uttar P

rade

sh

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Nagala

nd

Rajas

than

Indi

a

Kera

la

Bihar

Gujar

at

Tripu

ra

Sikkim

0.1

0.4

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.5

4.3

5.0

5.7

States such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have received the maximum number of awards.

The district-wise distribution of NGP awards is given in Volume 2, Annex 35.

3.6.2 NGP Winners versus Total Number of GPs

At the national level, the percent achievement of NGP is less than 10 percent against the total number of GPs.


NGPCOVERAGE(%)

51


3.7 Goal

The TSC’s goal is to eradicate the practice of open defecation in the rural areas of the country, which it plans to achieve in 2012. In addition, India is also committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target.

This section looks at the performance of the states on achieving universal sanitation coverage (households) which would help in understanding the current status as well as the extent of progress expected in the future towards reaching the goal.

To assess and project universal sanitation coverage, the analysis takes into account current cumulative coverage (based on projected household growth) and average growth rate of access to toilets for the last seven years across India and within states.

3.7.1 Progress towards Universal Sanitation Coverage

Given the current and annual growth rate in coverage, India will attain complete coverage in individual household toilets by 2018 (Figure 3.34).

figure 3.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household) Coverage (Year Wise)

2070206020502040203020202010200019901980

Sikkim

Mah

aras

htra

Nagala

nd

Mizo

ram

Uttar P

rade

sh

Rajas

than

Tripu

ra

Andh

ra Pr

ades

h

Assa

m

Harya

na

Mad

hya P

rade

sh

Jhar

khan

d

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Indi

a

Punj

ab

Kera

la

Chha

ttisg

arh

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Tam

il Nad

u

Uttara

khan

d

Goa

Wes

t Ben

gal

Karn

atak

a

Bihar

Gujar

at

Meg

halay

a

Orissa

Man

ipur

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

2008

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2013

2013

2014

2016

2016

2017

2017

2018

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2024

2024

2027

2028

2029 20

37

2038 20

46 2056 20

64

YEA

R O

F A

CHIE

VEM

ENT

Already Achieved By 2012 Beyond 2012



52

4. TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment

This chapter presents the findings of this study under each component of the rating scale developed to assess district-level processes and outcomes on the TSC (cumulative and stand-alone) and analyses the linkages between this and the sample districts benchmarking score. To recap, the components of the rating scale and benchmarking indicators are presented in Figure 4.1. This chapter is structured as follows:

• First,itpresentstheresultsofananalysisbetweendistrictcumulativescoreontheratingscaleandthe benchmarking score to understand if these two factors are correlated and to what extent; and

• Next,itanalysesdistrictperformanceoneachofthesixindividualdimensionsoftheratingscaleinterms of their individual score and if this correlates with the overall performance as represented by the benchmarking score and the extent of correlation. Study findings from the sample districts on individual dimensions are also presented here.

figure 4.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking

Measures Programme Results

1.%TSCBudgetSpent

2.%IndividualHousehold Latrine Target Achieved

3.%School Sanitation Target Achieved

4. Financial Efficiency5. Average Population

Covered by a GP6. Success Rate of

NGP Applications7. No. of NGPs won 8.%ofNGP

Panchayats to Total No. of PRIs

Measures Programme Processes & Outcomes

1. Strategy for TSC Implementation

2. Institutional structure and Capacity

3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up

4. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain

5. Financing and Incentives

6. Monitoring System

Rating Scale Benchmarking

53

4.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and Rating Scale (Cumulative)

CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE ON RATING SCALE

1. Strategy for TSC Implementation2. Institutional Structure and Capacity3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain5. Financing and Incentives 6. Monitoring System

Co

mp

on

ent

Sam

ple

Dis

tric

ts’ S

core

o

n t

he

Rat

ing

Sca

le

Bi-

vari

ate

Co

rrel

atio

n

Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .661**)

In the sample districts, a strong positive correlation was found between district performance on the benchmarking model and rating scale. This means that districts that do well on six components required for scaling up and sustaining sanitation, also perform well in terms of TSC results which are captured by the benchmarking model, and vice versa.

Averagebenchmarkingscore=52%

o Kottayamo Akola

o West Tripurao Bikaner

o Hamirpur

R Sq Linear = 0.436

o Mainpuri

Total rating scale percent

o Gumla

o Junagadh

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusarai

o Jorhato Dhenkanal

o Srikakulum

o Amritsar

o Virudhanagaro Valsad

o Bardhaman

o East Sikkimo Rewa

o Surguja

Shimoga oo Sirisa

o Kolhapur

Average rating scale=59%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment

100

80

60

40

20

0

Amrit

sar

Viru

dhan

agar

Kolh

apur

Valsa

d

Main

puri

East

Sikkim

Juna

gadh

Wes

t Trip

ura

Kotta

yam

Jorh

at

Akol

a

Dhenk

anal

Surg

uja

Gumla

Shim

oga

Srika

kulu

m

Sirsa

Begu

sara

i

Bard

ham

an

Bikan

er

Hamirp

ur

Rewa

15

10

33282727

18

40

55 58

67

58

73

78 81 8383

90898585

95Mean = 59%

PERC

ENT


54

4.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation

STRATEGY FOR TSC IMPLEMENTATION

1. TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group2. A well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists3. TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments 4. Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels 5. TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit – community-level engagement,

post-construction incentive, appropriate technology

Co

mp

on

ent

Sam

ple

Dis

tric

ts’ S

core

o

n t

he

Rat

ing

Sca

le

Bi-

vari

ate

Co

rrel

atio

n

Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .660**).

As can be seen from the graph above, in sample districts, there is a strong positive correlation between the performance on strategy for TSC implementation and TSC results as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, districts that have a well-defined strategy for TSC implementation perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.

4.2.1 Correlation between District Strategy Score and Benchmarking Score


o Kottayamo Akola


o Hamirpur

R Sq Linear = 0.436

o Mainpuri

Strategy score (percent)

o Gumla

o Junagadh

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusarai

o Jorhato Dhenkanal

o Srikakulum

o Amritsar


o Bardhaman

East Sikkim oo Rewao Surguja

Shimoga oo Sirisa

o Kolhapur

Average strategyscale=57%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Juna

gadh

Bikan

er

Kotta

yam

Amrit

sar

Surg

uja

Sirsa

Valsa

d

Main

puri

Bard

ham

an

Begu

sara

i

Akol

a

Srika

kulu

m

Hamirp

ur

Jorh

at

Wes

t Trip

ura

Dhenk

anal

Rewa

Gumla

East

Sikkim

Viru

dhan

agar

Shim

oga

Kolh

apur

00

2020202015

30

40

50

6060

70

80 80

9090

100

100

9595 100Mean = 57%

PERC

ENT

55

4.2.2 Study findings on Strategy for TSC Implementation

Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation

The TSC guidelines provide a broad framework within which states and districts have the flexibility to devise their own strategies for programme implementation depending on the socio-economic context, terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. A strategy can signal priorities, assign roles and responsibilities, and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. Ensuring the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up.

figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for TSC Implementation (n=22)

TSC principles are being adopted in the

right spirit

Well defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocationand monitoring plan exists

TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments

Strong political and administrative will to implement at different levels

TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group

4.2.2.1 TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the core group

The TSC represents a departure from the way that conventional rural sanitation programmes are implemented. According to programme guidelines, the TSC seeks to be community-led and demand-driven rather than target-led and supply-driven. As can be seen from Figure 4.2, in 89 percent of the sample districts, senior district-level officials share this understanding of the TSC framework and principles. The core team is also aware of the participatory campaign mode in which the TSC is supposed to be implemented with significant involvement of GPs. In terms of the goal, the NGP features prominently with many districts aspiring to Nirmal status as a result of the TSC.

4.2.2.2 Well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists

A strategy is required to implement the TSC as a people’s campaign, prioritise implementation in terms of geographical areas, populations and resources, and design solutions for problems such as behaviour change to end open defecation and scarcity of water/space. However, in only half of the sample districts, despite the progress in developing a shared understanding of the TSC guidelines within the core team, there is a lack of needed strategy and planning to move from paper to the ground. In these districts, it is observed that the implementation tends to be target-driven and goals set by implementation agencies are not realistic, given the time and resources available. On the other



56

hands, in districts that have developed a well-defined strategy for implementation suited to their context, we find that this is highly correlated with positive results on the ground (Box 3).

Traditionally, toilet usage has been a part of Sikkim’s culture but many toilets used were unsafe or unimproved sanitation. Between 2002-07, the TSC project in East Sikkim focused on promoting safe sanitation facilities. As a result, the district achieved nearly 90 percent household toilet coverage. A visit by the Secretary, DDWS, proved instrumental in galvanising the state to achieve Nirmal status and this goal was also adopted at the district level. It was decided to focus the TSC programme to achieve Nirmal status in a mission mode. The key features of the district strategy included:• CommongoalofbecomingNirmal and thereby contributing to the state’s vision of becoming

the first Nirmal Rajya in the country;• Creatinganenablingenvironmentforachievementofthisgoalthroughsensitisationand

orientation of all stakeholders involved in the programme;• Securingpoliticalandadministrativewilltoachievethisgoalatalladministrativelevels;• Flexibilityinmobilisationanddemandcreation,withGPstakingtheleadinimplementation;• Facilitatinglinkageswiththeopenmarketforsupplyofsanitaryproductsandservices;and• Regularmonitoringandreview.

As far as results are concerned, all 45 GPs, based on information of district officials, have been awarded the NGP including the district. Sikkim became the first state in the Indian Union to win the NGP at the state level in 2008.

4.2.2.3 TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments

In more than half of the sample districts, study findings show that there is scope to improve inter-departmental coordination. At the district level, the DWSM is the coordinating body for sanitation. Therefore, although the structures are largely in place, the use of this arrangement for coordinating implementation remains a challenge. This could be because the frequency of meetings varies across the sample districts, and even if meetings are held regularly, sanitation in some cases is the last agenda point as the DWSM is mainly focused on water supply.

4.2.2.4 Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels

In 43 percent of the study districts, although the core team understands the TSC principles and programme framework, this vision is not uniformly shared at sub-district implementation levels. This factor may be responsible for the ‘patchwork’ results visible in some districts in which certain blocks or GPs are able to achieve excellent results but the district is unable to scale up these pockets of excellence.

4.2.2.5 TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit – community level engagement, post-construction incentive, appropriate technology

The study findings show that TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit in less than half of the sample districts visited. Based on interaction with stakeholders during the district visits, we find that there is a good understanding of TSC principles among the core team members at the district level. However, in some districts, these are not being transmitted through the different levels of implementation up to the village level. One factor underlying this could be the pressure to achieve short-term targets for monthly reporting which leads to a short-circuiting of the TSC principles.

Box 3: Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim

57

4.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity

II. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND CAPACITY

1. The nodal agency is functional and effective 2. A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at the district level and is effective 3. Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block levels (e.g., cluster, GP,

habitation) for implementing the programme effectively 4. The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments 5. Village-level institutions are set up and are effective

Co

mp

on

ent

Sam

ple

Dis

tric

ts’ S

core

o

n t

he

Rat

ing

Sca

le

Bi-

vari

ate

Co

rrel

atio

n


As can be seen from the graph above, there is a strong positive correlation between the performance on institutional structure and capacity and performance on the TSC as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts that have an effective nodal agency, dedicated and well-staffed units for TSC at different implementation level and capacitated village-level institutions perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.

4.3.1 Correlation between District Institutional Structure and Capacity Score and Bench-marking Score


Kottayam oo Akola


o Hamirpur

R Sq Linear = 0.474

o Mainpuri

o Gumla

o Junagadh

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusarai

o Jorhato Dhenkanal

o Srikakulum

o Amritsar


oBardhaman

East Sikkim oo RewaSurguja o

Shimoga oSirisa o

o Kolhapur

Averageinfrastructurescale=62%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

Institutions score (percent)


120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Amrit

sar

Viru

dhan

agar

Kotta

yam

Juna

gadh

Bikan

er

Sirsa

Jorh

at

Akol

a

Bard

ham

an

Dhenk

anal

Kolh

apur

Srika

kulu

m

Shim

oga

Valsa

d

East

Sikkim

Gumla

Wes

t Trip

ura

Begu

sara

i

Surg

uja

Main

puri

Hamirp

ur

Rewa

0

202020

2015

30 40

50 6060

70 80 80

90

90

100

100

9595

100

Mean=62%

PERC

ENT

0


58

4.3.2 Study findings on Institutional Structure and Capacity

Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity

Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. To effectively scale up and sustain TSC outcomes, institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Institutional frameworks should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. Capacity refers to the availability of skilled human resources for TSC implementation, budgetary allocations to effectively implement programme activities, an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC, ability to monitor programme progress and make revisions as needed.

figure 4.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and Capacity (n=22)

Village level institutions are set up and effective

Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block level (ex. cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the program effectively

A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective

Nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments

Nodal agency is functional and effective

4.3.2.1 Nodal agency is functional and effective

In over two-thirds of study districts, a nodal agency for TSC implementation was found to be functional and effective. This was the norm except in cases where there was a recent shift in terms of the nodal agency at the state level. As a result of having recently taken over charge, district-level officials were not very well-informed regarding TSC implementation and progress.

4.3.2.2 A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective

In over two-thirds of the study districts, it was found that a dedicated unit for the TSC was set up at the district level. Typically, the DWSM is the overarching policy-making body. Day-to-day operations are undertaken by a nodal officer supported by a TSC cell, as outlined in the Kolhapur example in Box 4.

59

At the district level, a DWSM has been set up as a policy-making body, with the Zila Parishad President as Chairperson, the CEO as Vice-Chairperson and line department heads as members. The District Water and Sanitation Committee (DWSC) is an executive body which reviews and provides implementation support. The CEO of the Zila Parishad is the Chairperson with the Deputy CEO as member secretary. Effectively, the work is coordinated from the CEO’s office and committees or Missions are activated when there is a specific need to discuss issues across stakeholder segments.

The Deputy CEO, Village Panchayat, coordinates day-to-day operations. A dedicated sanitation unit for TSC implementation has been set up at the district level. This consists of three consultants (for communications, social mobilisation and capacity building) and one retired officer (former Block Development Officer – BDO) on contract in addition to one supporting staff (data entry operator). At the block, the TSC is coordinated by the Taluka Panchayat Officer, assisted by an engineer. The BDO regularly reviews the programme and further undertakes regular monitoring visits.

The TSC cell has the following responsibilities:• Prepareactionplansandmonitorprojectprogress;• CoordinateIECcampaign–onitsown,orthroughblocksandGPs;• Undertaketrainingoftrainersandcoordinatecascadeeventsatsub-districtlevels;and• Preparereportsonprojectprogressforthestate/centrallevel.

4.3.2.3 Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block level (for example, cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the programme effectively

In nearly half of the study districts, it was reported that adequate staff and capacity was not available at the block and sub-block level to implement the programme effectively. In some cases, this could be because of the remote location of these areas which makes these less attractive postings within the government system and also for professionals recruited from the open market. However, better performing districts have been able to address this issue by providing incentives to motivators based on outcome achievement such as ODF status. In some cases, it was also observed that motivators are provided with a monthly stipend, boarding and lodging during field visits and arrangement of a vehicle to enable them to travel to the field.

4.3.2.4 Nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments

Effective inter-departmental coordination is observed in only half of the study sample districts. As mentioned earlier under the Strategy component, this seems to be the case despite the fact that structures for inter-departmental coordination are largely in place at the district level and it is their effective functioning at the field level that needs to be addressed (Box 5).

4.3.2.5 Village level institutions are set up and are effective

The TSC envisages a significant role for village-level government in programme implementation and monitoring. Effective village-level institutions are reported to be found in 57 percent of the sample districts. Generally, GP members and the Village Water and Sanitation Committee take up activities


Box 4: Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from Kolhapur


60

related to motivation and monitoring. Depending on the context, community-based organisations have also been involved in TSC programme implementation, for example, in villages where women’s microcredit groups are functioning well, Self Help Group (SHG) members have been utilised by the GP for mobilising women, messaging, financing (in some cases) and monitoring.

In one of the districts visited for the study, it was found that, at the district level, line department representatives are included in the DWSC and, therefore, there is a structure in place for inter-departmental coordination. However, this coordination does not percolate down to the village level. A case in point is that the government is assisting in the construction of a house for BPL families under its housing programme. Although a toilet is part of the overall design of the house to be constructed under this programme, it was reported that concerned officials are not insisting on completion of toilet construction at the time of releasing the last instalment of funds to beneficiaries. This is the situation in spite of the fact that TSC programme activities are being implemented on a parallel track in the district with an emphasis on supporting toilet construction by BPL families.

Box 5: Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need

4.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up

APPROACH TO CREATING DEMAND AND SCALING UP

1. Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy2. Implementation is phased3. Demand creation depends on community mobilisation4. Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised5. Strategy is implemented at scaleC

om

po

nen

tSa

mp

le D

istr

icts

’ Sco

re o

n

the

Rat

ing

Sca

le

4.4.1 Correlation between District Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Score and Benchmarking Score

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

80 80

90 90

100

100

100

100

100

Viru

dhan

agar

Bikan

er

Sirsa

Juna

gadh

Wes

t Trip

ura

Rewa

Amrit

sar

Bard

ham

an

East

Sikkim

Jorh

at

Main

puri

Dhenk

anal

Surg

uja

Gumla

Akol

a

Srika

kulu

m

Shim

oga

Valsa

d

Hamirp

ur

Begu

sara

i

Kolh

apur

Kotta

yam

0 0 0 0 0

10

20 25 30

40 40

60

70

PERC

ENT

Mean=52%

61

Bi-

vari

ate

Co

rrel

atio

n


There is a positive correlation between the performance on approach to creating demand and scaling up and performance on the TSC as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts where implementation is phased and the approach is based on community mobilisation rather than upfront subsidy, perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.


Kottayam oo Akola

o West Tripurao Bikaner Hamirpur o

R Sq Linear = 0.28

o Mainpuri

Demand score (percent)

o Gumla

o Junagadh

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusaraio Jorhato Dhenkanal

o Srikakulum

o Amritsar


Bardhaman o

o East Sikkimo Rewa

Surguja o

o Shimogao Sirisao Kolhapur

Averagedemandscale=52%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –


4.4.2 Study findings on Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up

Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up

A programme approach consists of specific activities, their timing and sequence. The TSC guidelines advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives. Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity.

figure 4.4: Study Districts Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up (n = 22)

Strategy isimplemented at scale

Implementation isphased

Demand creation depends on community mobilisation

Motivators are used to the optimal level and have incentives

Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy


62

4.4.2.1 Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy

Traditionally, sanitation programmes in India have relied on subsidy to create ‘demand’ for sanitation. By contrast, the TSC seeks to be based on social mobilisation and behaviour change to end open defecation. Instead of subsidy, the programme guidelines use the term incentive and this is only available for the poorest of the poor, namely BPL families. In addition, the incentive is supposed to be released post construction of a toilet and verification of its usage by the BPL family.

Despite this, in half of the study districts, it is found that implementation does depend on upfront subsidy for toilet construction. This could be a reflection of several factors such as limited capacity to implement a more time-consuming approach based on social mobilisation and pressure to achieve short-term targets based on toilet construction or expenditure.

4.4.2.2 Implementation is phased

Sanitation coverage in rural areas of India has been historically low as open defecation is a traditional behaviour. In this context, the TSC seeks to achieve universal rural sanitation coverage and district projects of three to five years’ duration are sanctioned to this effect. Despite the scale of the sanitation challenge, phasing or prioritisation of implementation activities is reported in less than half of the sample districts visited. This emphasises the need to strengthen the capacity to plan and manage the TSC district projects. The example of Shimoga district in Box 6 demonstrates how some of the better performing districts tackle TSC implementation.

The TSC programme was launched in Shimoga district of Karnataka in October 2005 but actual operations started the following year in October 2006. The district’s prior experience with a literacy campaign indicated that sustaining a campaign or mission mode is possible for a short period only (one or two years), so after piloting the TSC in 2006, the programme was scaled up in phases as follows:• Year1–ProgressiveandinterestedGPstakenup(about30);• Year 2 – Focus on the fourMalnadu Talukas (hilly regions) where hygiene habits were

believed to be more progressive and outcomes could be achieved faster; and• Year3–CoverthebalanceGPs.

At the time of undertaking the visit, 88 percent of the 260 GPs in the district had been awarded the NGP. The district is also on track to become completely ODF in 2010, two years ahead of the state goal of 2012.

4.4.2.3 Demand creation depends on community mobilisation

In just over half of the districts visited, it was found that demand creation is underpinned by efforts to mobilise the community to switch from open defecation to using safe and hygienic toilets. Different districts have followed different approaches to community mobilisation. For instance, in some cases, districts have partnered with NGOs to facilitate this process at the village level; in others, the programme is implemented by PRI/block representatives and facilitated through motivators. Across the sample districts, various behaviour change communication techniques include folk theatre, public meetings, documentary films, television spots, radio jingles and house-to-house visits. In some districts, social mobilisation has been undertaken using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods based on the

Box 6: Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District

63

In October 2007, Sirsa district, Haryana, drew up a strategy to implement the TSC as a time-bound mission, with the government facilitating the community to change its sanitation status. To this end, dedicated teams of motivators were created. Each team comprised eight to 10 members and was made responsible for five to six villages. The motivators were trained as swachhata sainiks through training programmes at the district level. The training included participatory tools and motivational songs to inspire the participants to spearhead the sanitation movement in the district.

At the village level, the following steps were taken:• Step 1: Village visit by the motivators, reaching out to people from all walks and all ages, working

with the community members to undertake a self-analysis of their present sanitation status; • Step 2: Motivating students and women to come forward and participate in the sanitation

movement. Appeals to issues of shame, dignity, convenience and health costs to induce behaviour change were made. The major trigger seems to have been the realisation that open defecation was tantamount to community members consuming each other’s faecal matter; and

• Step3:FormationoftheSanitationCommittee(Swachhata Samiti) comprising natural leaders who were motivated to change the sanitation status of their village.

In addition, innovative IEC techniques were used such as catchy slogans instead of traditional greetings (Jai Swachhata), rallies and processions, torch light processions, recognition and rewards, and inviting village leaders who had achieved ODF status to share their experiences with those who were in the process. Triggering was matched by dedicated follow-up. Motivators report visiting villages at 4 am and going along with the village Swachhata Samiti members to ensure that no one would defecate in the open.

At the time of undertaking the visit, 277 out of 333 GPs in Sirsa had won the NGP and the remaining GPs are applying for the NGP. The district has declared itself completely ODF, making it one of the first to achieve this feat in India.


Box 7: Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation: A Case Study of Sirsa District

4.4.2.4 Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised

In just over half the districts visited, it was found that motivators are being used efficiently. As social mobilisation is a time-consuming process, in many cases, it was reported that motivators were compensated on the basis of performance-linked incentives. These included payment of a small fee upon achievement of outputs such as toilet construction, followed by a lump sum upon achievement of community-wide ODF status.

4.4.2.5 Strategy is implemented at scale

In 60 percent of the districts visited, it was found that the strategy was implemented at scale. Through the effective use of a demand-driven strategy that the motivators created, these districts have scaled up the programme across districts. The scaling up included the use of various mass media and interpersonal communication methods. Reaching the message to every village in the district through capacitated motivators was one of the keys to this scaling up.

Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach through trained facilitators. Different messages have been used – health, dignity, convenience, privacy, pride, etc.

Box 7 describes the programme approach to scaling up TSC adoption in Sirsa district.


64

4.5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain

TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN

1. Multiple technology options are promoted2. Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable3. Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe4. Products and services sourced are easily available 5. Well-qualified trained masons are available for constructionC

om

po

nen

tSa

mp

le D

istr

icts

’ Sco

re

on

th

e R

atin

g S

cale

B

i-va

riat

e C

orr

elat

ion

Although the sample districts have largely performed well on this component as indicated by the mean rating scale score of 70 percent, it is not correlated with the performance on the TSC as captured by the benchmarking score. This is not to say that technology promotion and supply chain do not have a bearing on TSC progress. In fact, choice in technology promotion is integral to scaling up the TSC and safe technologies are essential if programme results are to be sustained. The lack of correlation may be due to the supply-driven approach for BPL toilets adopted by most districts in which the district decides the technology.

4.5.1 Correlation between District Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Score and Benchmarking Score


o Kottayamo Akola

o Bikanero Hamirpur

R Sq Linear = 0.009

o Mainpuri

Technology score (percent)

o Gumla

Junagadh o

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusarai

o JorhatDhenkanal o

o Srikakulum

Amritsar o

Virudhanagar oo Valsad

o Bardhaman

o East Sikkimo Rewa o Surguja

o Shimogao Sirsa

o Kolhapur

Average technology scale=70%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

West Tripura o

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Gumla

Shim

oga

East

SikkimSirsa

Srika

kulu

m

Kolh

apur

Rewa

Begu

sara

i

Viru

dhan

agar

Juna

gadh

Surg

uja

Valsa

d

Akol

a

Amrit

sar

Main

puri

Bikan

er

Hamirp

ur

Wes

t Trip

ura

Jorh

at

Dhenk

anal

Kotta

yam

Bard

ham

an

50

40

20

60 60 60 60 60 60

70

80

70

80 80 80 80 80 80

90 90 95 100

Mean=70%

PERC

ENT

65


4.5.2 Study findings on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain

Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain

The TSC guidelines advocate informed technology choice and setting up of alternate supply channels such as RSMs. At the implementation level, technology promotion includes not just separate toilet components (for example, sanitary pans, pipes, traps, etc.) but also existing latrine technology options (for example, septic tank, ventilated double pit toilet, eco-sanitation). It also includes provision of masonry services for installation, and sanitary services for operation, maintenance and final disposal.

figure 4.5: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain (n=22)

Well qualified trainedmasons are available

for construction

Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable

Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe

Products and services sourced are easily available

Multiple technology options are promoted

4.5.2.1 Multiple technology options are promoted

Selection of sanitation technology options must take into account technical and demand factors. Technical factors relate to physical parameters, for example, terrain, soil permeability, ground water table level, availability of space and risk of flooding. By contrast, demand factors relate to customs and socio-economic conditions and are crucial to the acceptance of, and willingness to invest in, a sanitation option. Examples of demand factors include affordability, hygiene behaviours (for example, material used for cleansing), and preparedness for maintenance and emptying.

Despite the importance of informed technology choice, assessment findings show that efforts to promote multiple technology options are a reality in less than one-third of the sample districts (Figure 4.6). This may be because a single model of technology is promoted which need to be adapted to fit within the TSC cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families. Study findings show that where users have not been sufficiently involved in choosing the technology, they are reluctant to break the habit of open defecation and use toilets. This has led to poor quality and/or incomplete construction (for example, missing doors, reduced height of walls, no lining in pits). In some cases, the constructed toilets are being used for storage or after covering the pan, the toilet is used for bathing and washing. In contrast, there are no such cost norms for construction of toilets for APL families and, in this case, users are free to adopt any technology that they choose.


66

figure 4.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22)

4.5.2.2 Technology choices promoted are affordable and respond to community preferences

In a majority of districts, the focus is on affordable technology, particularly for BPL families. The model promoted is adapted to fit within the cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families rather than user preference. For example, in one district, it was found that most of the toilets constructed were single pit model with a pour-flush pan. However, due to scarcity of water, users are removing the water seal trap to convert the toilet into a pit toilet, which constitutes unimproved sanitation. However, in the case of APL families, it is found that they are free to construct toilets of their choice and there is generally no effort made by the district to influence their preference.

4.5.2.3 Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe

Study findings show that, in all the sample districts, technology choices promoted are safe. However, due to a lack of awareness about technology aspects and their implications for safe sanitation, in very few cases, users have made modifications to the promoted design. One finding emerging from this study is the prevalence of a popular myth concerning the depth of a pit or dimensions of a tank to be dug for a durable toilet. It was found that people generally believe that a pit or tank should be as wide or deep as possible so that it does not get filled up quickly. As a result, in some areas, toilet pits are known as kuiya or small well because they can be as deep as 25-40 feet. In others, septic tanks are constructed such that they would not get filled over a life time of use by a family of five members.

4.5.2.4 Sanitary products and services are easily available

In nearly all the sample districts, there were no reported bottlenecks in the availability of sanitary products and services. In terms of the supply chain, three different models are found to be in operation: direct purchase from the private market, government sponsored procurement from the private market, and RSMs. These models are not mutually exclusive and are generally found to co-exist, although the first, private supply, is the most prevalent and clearly has the largest market share. Government sponsored procurement from the private market adopts a piece-meal approach and is focused on a particular product such as the ‘rural pan’ (a pan with a steep slope to minimise water use) in districts that report water scarcity, or the pre-fabricated superstructure (for example, metal shed) and sub-structure (for example, concrete rings). In the case of government-led procurement, the cost of the products procured is deducted from the BPL incentive amount. With respect to RSMs,

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Single model oftechnology is

promoted

64

27

9

Informed technology

choice is promoted

Limited choice in technology

options is promoted

PERC

ENT

67


the experience has been mixed. In most cases, RSMs were reported to cater to a very small segment as buyers were free to purchase from the private market. As a result, many RSMs became ineffective, and issues such as unrealised payment and unsold stock were reported. In a few districts, however, RSMs have evolved into a sustainable alternative delivery system for sanitary products and services (Box 8).

In Bardhaman district of West Bengal, RSMs are the cornerstone of the district strategy to promote rural sanitation. The operation of RSMs is undertaken by NGOs and the RSM network combines supply of sanitation products with extensive social marketing. Fundamental to the success of the RSM is the support network of motivators. They campaign door to door to create awareness about sanitation and generate demand, manifest in the beneficiary contribution for construction of a toilet as per the TSC cost norms. Once a household has agreed to have a toilet, all the hardware items are delivered to the household and a trained mason installs the toilet including digging of the pit. In terms of performance, Bardhaman district report 100 percent household latrine coverage and 137 out of 277 GPs have won the NGP to date.

4.5.2.5 Well-qualified and trained masons are available for toilet construction

In nearly all the sample districts, there were no problems reported in terms of availability of masons for toilet construction. In some districts, there were training programmes being conducted for the local masons while, in other districts, there was no specific training. In the districts where training was conducted, there has been no issue with the quality of the toilets constructed. However, in other districts, where there has been no training, the masons, who are civil workers with no proper training, have constructed less than perfect toilets, which can contaminate the environment.

Box 8: An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience

4.6 Component 5: financing and Incentives

FINANCING AND INCENTIVES

1. Additional instalments are asked for on time2. There are no funding bottlenecks3. Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability)4. Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads namely SLWM, IEC,

etc., are being used)5. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally

Co

mp

on

ent

Sam

ple

Dis

tric

ts’ S

core

o

n t

he

Rat

ing

Sca

le

4.6.1 Correlation between District financing and Incentives Score and Benchmarking Score

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

80 80 80 80 80

90 90 100

100

Amrit

sar

Bikan

er

East

Sikkim

Jorh

at

Akol

a

Rewa

Dhenk

anal

Hamirp

ur

Bard

ham

an

Begu

sara

i

Kotta

yam

Srika

kulu

m

Viru

dhan

agar

Juna

gadh

Kolh

apur

Main

puri

Shim

oga

Gumla

Sirsa

Valsa

d

Surg

uja

Wes

t Trip

ura

0

2020

30 30

40 40

50

6070 70 70

80

Mean=62%

PERC

ENT


68

Bi-

vari

ate

Co

rrel

atio

n


There is a very strong positive correlation between the performance on financing and incentives and sample districts’ benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts where the fund flow is smooth and funding is used efficiently along with incentives for optimal performance, perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.


o Kottayamo Akola

Bikaner oo Hamirpur

R Sq Linear = 0.649

o Mainpuri

Finance score (percent)

Gumla o

Junagadh o

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusarai

o JorhatDhenkanal o

Srikakulum o

o Amritsar


o Bardhaman

o East Sikkimo RewaSurguja o

Shimoga oo Sirisao Kolhapur

Average finance scale=62%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

o West Tripura

4.6.2 Study findings on financing and Incentives

Component 5: financing and Incentives

Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. This includes costs of activities under different programme components (for example, school sanitation and hygiene education, administration, etc.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated, released and spent. Incentives can be financial or non-financial, given upfront or post achievement.

figure 4.7: Study Districts’ Average Performance on financing and Incentives (n=22)

Incentives are availablefor various stakeholders

to perform optimally

There are no fundingbottlenecks

Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability)

Additional installments are asked on time

Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all

heads, namely, SLWM, IEC, etc. are being used)

69


4.6.2.1 Additional instalments are asked for on time

Over four-fifths of districts studied reported that additional instalments of TSC funds were requested on time. This indicates that, on average, the project financial flows are smooth.

4.6.2.2 There are no funding bottlenecks

The TSC and NGP provide ample resources for rural sanitation. Of this, a percentage of funding is earmarked for software expenditure, and the rest for hardware and cash incentives to BPL families. A majority of the districts indicated that there was no shortage of funding for implementing programme activities.

4.6.2.3 Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability

In a majority of districts, 57 percent of the funding is being used for both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability of outcomes achieved after the programme is completed. Funds are used for software activities, for motivating the people and in the construction of toilets as well as for SLWM activities and sustainability of the initiatives.

4.6.2.4 Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads, namely, SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used)

In less than half of the study districts, there is a mismatch between the TSC allocation and capacity to absorb and spend the funds. Many districts reported having unused balances under the programme. This can partially be attributed to the fact that certain programme components, such as SLWM, are relatively new and there is limited capacity to undertake interventions in this area as yet.

4.6.2.5 Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally

The national-level TSC guidelines provide incentives for BPL families to construct and use toilets. In addition, the NGP is an incentive for PRIs to achieve TSC goals. Over and above these national-level mandates, in just over half of the districts visited, it was found that incentives have been made available for stakeholders at different levels of the implementation chain as well. Incentives take the form of a cash amount, for example, in Jorhat district in Assam, the motivator gets 10 percent of the household contribution towards toilet construction as a reward for effective motivation. Several districts also reported public recognition and felicitation being instituted as an incentive for exemplary performance.


70

4.7 Component 6: Monitoring

MONITORING

1. Monitoring systems are available at the village level2. Monitoring systems exists for block and district levels3. Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately 4. Monitoring for toilet usage exists5. Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularlyC

om

po

nen

tSa

mp

le D

istr

icts

’ Sco

re

on

th

e R

atin

g S

cale

B

i-va

riat

e C

orr

elat

ion

Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .543**

There is a positive correlation between the performance on monitoring and sample districts’ benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts with an effective monitoring system are more likely to perform well on the TSC

4.7.1 Correlation between District Monitoring Score and Benchmarking Score


o Kottayamo Akola

o Hamirpur

R Sq Linear = 0.295

o Mainpuri

Monitoring score (percent)

Gumla o

o Junagadh

0 20 40 60 80 100

o Begusarai

o Bikaner

o Jorhat o Dhenkanal

Srikakulum o

o Amritsar


Bardhaman o

o East Sikkimo RewaSurguja o

o Shimogao Sirisa

o Kolhapur

Average monitoringscale=53%

Benc

hmar

king

sco

re p

erce

nt

80 –

60 –

40 –

20 –

0 –

o West Tripura

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

70 70 7080 80 85 90

100

100

Juna

gadh

Main

puri

East

Sikkim

Amrit

sar

Viru

dhan

agar

Kotta

yam

Valsa

d

Wes

t Trip

ura

Hamirp

ur

Gumla

Bard

ham

an

Jorh

at

Shim

oga

Begu

sara

i

Surg

uja

Srika

kulu

m

Akol

a

Bikan

er

Sirsa

Dhenk

anal

Kolh

apur

Rewa

0 0

20 20 20

30 30 40 40

50

60 60 60

Mean=53%

PERC

ENT

71

figure 4.8: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22)

Monitoring ofNGP/ODF villages is

undertaken regularly

Monitoring systemsexist for block anddistrict level

Monitoring systems tracks both BPL and APL coverage accuratelyMonitoring for usage exists

Monitoring systems are available at village level

4.7.2 Study findings on Monitoring

Component 6: Monitoring

Large-scale sanitation programmes such as the TSC require an efficient monitoring system and ability to ensure that the results of monitoring are used to improve programme implementation. Monitoring should be done by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring should be collected from all levels, starting with the lowest.

4.7.2.1 Monitoring systems are available at the village level

In a majority of the sample districts, a monitoring system to track progress on sanitation exists at the village level. The responsibility for monitoring at this level rests with the GP-level functionaries, for example, Gram Sewak, Panchayat Secretary or motivators. Monitoring is done on indicators prescribed by the Government of India such as construction of toilets by different categories of households, construction of school and Anganwadi toilets, etc. (Box 9).

Meticulous monitoring has played a key role in the successful scaling up of the TSC in Sirsa district, Haryana. Over and above meeting the TSC monitoring system requirements, a community-led monitoring system consisting of Nigrani (monitoring) Committees was developed at the village level to track the progress towards total sanitation and check slippages. Members of the Nigrani Committee were natural leaders of the community who came forward and volunteered for the cause of sanitation. As proof of their commitment, the members of the Nigrani Committee would wake up at 4 am and undertake visits to areas traditionally used for open defecation, armed with whistles and torches. These checks by the Nigrani Committee helped to facilitate the process of habit formation to end open defecation and switch to using toilets.


Box 9: Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District


72

4.7.2.2 Monitoring systems exist at block and district levels

In a majority of sample districts, the data on sanitation progress are collected by village-level functionaries and transmitted to the block level for review. From the block level, it is sent to the district level and consolidated at the monthly review in the district and entered into the district Monthly Progress Report (MPR) with a copy to the state-level nodal department. The reporting covers the achievement of the current reporting period as well as the cumulative achievement to date.

4.7.2.3 Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately

In nearly half of the sample districts, it was found that the monitoring system for TSC tracks and reports both APL and BPL toilet coverage accurately.

4.7.2.4 Monitoring for toilet usage exists

Tracking usage of toilets constructed emerges as one of the weakest links of the TSC monitoring system in the sample districts studied. Toilet usage is monitored by only one-third of the sample districts, of which around half reported undertaking this activity on an ad hoc basis, for example, during a village visit by a block-level official, rather than routinely.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0No

59

22

19

Yes, on a routine basis

Yes, on an ad hoc basis

figure 4.9: finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22)

4.7.2.5 Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly

Monitoring of NGP winners is reported by even less than one-third of the sample districts. This could be because the NGP is a one-time award and therefore repeat checks on whether the NGP status is being sustained are not undertaken. However, Rewa district in Madhya Pradesh has introduced an innovative incentive/monitoring programme which provides an example of one of the ways in which NGP status can be sustained (Box 10).

Rewa district, Madhya Pradesh, initiated Swachh Gram Puruskar in 2009 at the district level to award one GP from each block which follows demand-driven principles and sustains ODF status. The award (Rs. 50,000) is presented based on scores given in the peer review process led by sub-division-level officers. The scope of the award is limited to those GPs that have applied for NGP.

PERC

ENT

Box 10: Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachh Puraskar

73

5. Summary and Recommendations

5.1 Summary

As mentioned at the outset, to achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat within the TSC timeframe, there is need for a clear understanding of the present achievements, the processes that underpin scaling up, replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. Although there has been an undeniable upward trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage over the last decade of the TSC, national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals. Therefore, it is an opportune time to assess the present status, the progress towards full coverage and the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state and district levels.

1. National coverage has significantly scaled up to about 60 percent till March 2010. However, there have been significant differences in the coverage between the states. While one state, Sikkim, has declared itself ODF, some others have a coverage of less than 30 percent.

2. In absolute terms, approximately five crore toilets need to be constructed. At the present rate, significant acceleration is required in some states to meet the goal of ODF India by 2012.

3. At the present rate of coverage, it is expected that ODF India will be reached only by 2018 at the national level, but will take another half a century in states that are lagging behind.

4. The processes adopted by the district have a direct bearing on the outcomes achieved. In the study undertaken as part of this documentation, 22 districts across 21 states were selected. The processes by which TSC is implemented were divided into six components – strategy, institutional structure, approach to demand creation and scaling up, technology promotion and supply chain, financing and incentives, and monitoring. These processes were analysed qualitatively using a research protocol. These qualitative findings were converted into quantitative scores using the rating scale. Study findings show that good performance in terms of programme outcomes, as measured by the benchmarking score, are positively correlated with processes adopted to implement the programme as measured by the rating scale. This means that districts that adopt the right processes are more likely to perform better on the programme.

5. Study findings show that better performing districts are not doing different things but are doing things differently within the TSC framework. As detailed, better performing districts use the opportunities for flexibility available within the guidelines to adapt implementation to their field realities and learn from successes and mistakes to scale up the programme.

5.2 Recommendations

The key outcome expected of the TSC and the NGP is that GPs that have achieved total sanitation status should sustain it over the long term. On the basis of analysis of the secondary data (TSC MIS) and rapid assessment in the 22 districts, the following recommendations are made for improvement:

Focus on Processes

A scaling up of the achievement of total sanitation in the villages requires the adoption of sound processes. In addition, sustainability of the change in behaviour is only assured if the corresponding


74

processes are sound. This is especially true in a behaviour change approach as in sanitation where participatory processes are essential for communities to understand and adopt change. As the study has shown, there is a direct correlation between the processes and outcomes.

To achieve scale and sustainability, it is therefore essential for districts to understand and adopt the processes in the true spirit. The six components on the basis of which processes have been analysed represent an agenda for action. The districts could look at their processes vis-à-vis this template, and identify gaps which need addressing and weaknesses which require strengthening. This focus on processes, rather than short-term physical target achievement, can drive scaling up and sustainability of the TSC programme, now and post 2012.

Monitoring Sustainability

The achievement of any output and outcome is often driven by what is being monitored. The present monitoring system of the TSC focuses on inputs and outputs achieved in the short term rather than the processes by which these are achieved. The NGP monitoring system focuses exclusively and separately on outcomes, making the linkage with inputs and outputs difficult. Even in the NGP, the focus is on current outcomes rather than sustainability. It is, therefore, important to include in the monitoring system:• Processindicatorsfortrackingonaregularbasistoensurethattheprocessesarebeingfollowed

by the districts; and • Indicatorswhichtrack long-termsustainabilityoftheoutcomes.Thismay include,forexample,

sustainability of the NGP-winning GPs, to ensure that there are no slippages.

75

References

Bruijne, G. et. al., 2007. Sanitation for All? Thematic Overview Paper 20. Netherlands: International Water and Sanitation Centre.

Government of India, 2004. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development.

Government of India, 2007. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development

Government of India, 2008. Sustaining the Sanitation Revolution. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development.

Guerrant, R.L., Schorling, J.B., McAuliffe, J.F., and de Souza, M.A., 1992. Diarrhoea as a cause and an effect of malnutrition: diarrhoea prevents catch-up growth and malnutrition increases diarrhoea frequency and duration. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 47: pp 28–35.

Hutton, G., Haller, L. and Bartram, J., 2007. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. Journal of Water and Health, 5 (4): pp 481–502.

Murray, C.J. and Lopez, A.D., 1997. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global burden of disease study. Lancet, 349 (9063): pp 1436-42.

Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2001. Census of India. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

TARU, 2008. Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats. New Delhi: The Action Research Unit.

WaterAid, 2005. Drinking Water and Sanitation Status in India: Coverage, Financing and Emerging Concerns. New Delhi: WaterAid.

WaterAid, 2006. Dying for the Toilet. United Kingdom: WaterAid.

WaterAid, 2008. Tackling the Silent Killer: the Case for Sanitation. New Delhi: WaterAid.

RGNDWM, 2005. Nirmal Gram Puraskar: a National Award under Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission.

WaterAid, 2006. Total Sanitation in South Asia: the Challenges Ahead. London: WaterAid, Discussion Paper.

WSP, 2007. An Approach that Works: Community Led Total Sanitation in Rural Areas. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank.

WSP , 2006. Study of Best Practices in Rural Sanitation in India: Working towards an Open Defecation Free Rural India. Draft Report prepared for WSP. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank.

World Bank, 2004. India Burden of Disease Statistics. Available at http://genderstats.worldbank.org/hnpstats/files/BOD4.xls. Accessed in March 2010.


76

Government of India

Ms. Agatha Sangma, Minister of StateMinistry of Rural Development,195 Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001Tel: 011-23383614

Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, SecretaryDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India,Room No. 247, A Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011Tel: 011-23061245

Mr. J.S. Mathur, Joint SecretaryDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Ministry of Rural Development, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011-24362705

Mr. vijay Mittal, DirectorDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Ministry of Rural Development,Paryavaran Bhavan, B-1 Block, 8-9th Floor CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003Tel: 011-24364427

Mr. Bharat Lal, DirectorRGNDWM, Department of Drinking Water Supply,8th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011-24360102

Mr. Rish Kumar KaushikUnder Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply,Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi -110 003Tel: 011-24362106

National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants

Mr. Anjani Kumar, DEO Department of Drinking Water Supply,Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003

Mrs. Urvashi Prasad, Consultant Department of Drinking Water Supply.Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003

Mr. J. A. Usmani, ConsultantDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003

Ms. Jasmin Shah, ConsultantDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003Mobile: 9868358024

Mr. Kamal Mazumdar, Asstt. AdvisorDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011-24362106

Mr. Raja Sekharan, Asstt. AdvisorDepartment of Drinking Water Supply,Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011-24362106

Andhra Pradesh

Mr. S.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Project Director, SWSWSWSMHRD building, SRTGN Bhawan, PR Engg, Building Complex, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad Tel: 040-23310669

77

Arunachal Pradesh

Mr. A.N. Singh, Executive DirectorCommunication and Capacity Development Unit,Public Health Engineering Department, Itanagar, Arunachal PradeshTel: 0360-2214057

Mr. Geyum Padu, Chief EngineerCommunication and Capacity Development Unit,Public Health Engineering Department,Itanagar, Arunachal PradeshTel: 0360-2214057

Assam

Mr. Annada Prasad Sarmah, Executive EngineerPublic Health Engineering Department, Mangoldoi Phed, Distt. Darrang, AssamTel: 03713-222199

Mr. Bidhan Chandra Dey, Executive EngineerPublic Health Engineering Department,Golaghat DivisionDistt. Golaghat, Innaki Nagar, Assam 785 621Tel: 03774-284763

Bihar

Mohd M. Sadullah Jawaid, Director-PMU BSWSM, PHED,Vishweshwaraiya, Patna, BiharTel: 0612-2545705, 2545031

Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, Executive EngineerPHED, PH Division, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar Tel: 06224-260320

Chhattisgarh

Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Special Secretary PHED, Mantralaya, DKS Bhavan, Raipur, ChhattisgarhTel: 0771-2331368, 2425354

Mr. M.A. Khan, Engineer-in-Chief Public Health Engineering Department,Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines,Raipur, ChhattisgarhTel: 0771-2331368, 2425354

Mr. H.K. HingoraniChief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, ChhattisgarhTel: 094250-22311

Mr. J.K. Sharma, Superintending EngineerPublic Health Engineering Department,Durg, Circle, in front of Science College,Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001Tel: 0788-2331060

Mr. A.K. Sahu, Executive EngineerPublic Health Engineering Project, Division Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Tel: 0788-2293560

Mr. Sudhir K Agrawal, Special SecretaryPublic Health Engineer Department, 145 DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, ChhattisgarhTel: 0777-2583126

Gujarat

Mr. S. R. Desai, District Project Coordinator Department of Rural Development Agency,Multi Storey Bldg. 5th Floor, C-Block, Nandura, Surat, Gujarat 395 001Tel: 0261-2465723

Haryana

Ms. Sumedha Kataria, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive OfficerDepartment of Rural Development Agency,Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra, Haryana 138 116 Tel: 01744-220756



78

Mr. Puran Singh Yadav, State Project Coordinator, TSCPanchayati Raj & Rural Development Department,Government of Haryana, Civil SecretariatChandigarh, HaryanaTel: 0172-2711758

Himachal Pradesh

Mr. Robin George, TSC CoordinatorRural Development Department,Block No. 27 Kusumpti, Shimla Tel: 0177-2622302

Mr. S. M. Saini, Project OfficerDepartment of Rural Development Agency,Solan, Himachal Pradesh Tel: 01792-223915

Jharkhand

Dr. Niraj Kumar, DirectorSATHEE, Chitragupta Colony,Distt. Goldda, Jharkhand 814 133Tel: 09431735586

Mr. M. Thanvir Akhtar, Superintending EngineerDW&S, Ranchi Circle, Road No.8, Risaldar Nagar, Dhurwa Ranchi Circle, Jharkhand Tel: 9431422165

Karnataka

Dr. P. Boregowda, Director & Addl. SecreatryRural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,KHB Complex, E Block, Caveri Bhawan, K G Road,Bangalore 560 009Tel: 080-22240508

Dr. Manjula, Chief Executive OfficerZila Panchayat,Next District Court, Boulevard Road.Mysore, KarnatakaTel: 0821-2330316

Mr. H. Chittaranjan, Chief Executive OfficerBangalore Zila Parishad (Rural),Opp Sagar Theatre, K G RoadBangalore 560 009

Kerala

Mr. A. Stanly, Director (Operations) Suchitwa Mission, Local Self Government Department, Panavila Junction, Thycand, P.O. Trivandrum, Kerala Tel: 0471-2325730

Madhya Pradesh

Mr. Sudharshan Kumar Soni, Deputy Commissioner Rural Development, 2nd Floor, Vindyachal Bhawan, Bhopal 462 016Tel: 0755-2572993

Mr. Ashish Kumar, Chief Executive OfficerZila Panchayat,Civil Lines, Satna 485 001Tel: 07672-225449

Maharashtra

Mr. Nipun vinayak, Deputy Secretary & Project DirectorWSSD, 149A, FF, Mantralaya,Mumbai 400 032 Tel: 022-22023338

Mr. Sudhakar Shinde, State CoordinatorCCDU, Sidco Bhavan, Belapur,Navi MumbaiTel: 022-27565087

Mr. M. S. Kalshetti, Deputy SecretaryRDO, Maharashtra,161 FF Main Building,Mantralaya, MumbaiTel: 022-22846893, 22831017

79

Manipur

Mr. L. Swamikant Singh, DirectorCommunication & Capacity Development Unit, Public Health Engineering Department,Lmphelpat, Imphal, Manipur 795 004Mobile: 0943689025

Mr. L. Ibomcha Singh, Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department,Kwakeiphel Moirang Purel Leikh, Imphal, Manipur 795001Tel: 0385-2457536

Punjab

Mr. D. S. Cheema, Superintendent EngineerWater Supply and Sanitation Department,Sangruru Circle, Punjab,Tel: 01672-234339

Md. Ishpak, Executive EngineerWater Supply and Sanitation Department,HIG Flat NO.3, Rajguru Nagar,Ludhiana 141 001Tel: 0161-2462735

Sikkim

Ms. Yishey D. Yongda, Deputy SecretaryRural Management & Development Department,Gram Vikas Bhawan, Tashiling Secretariat, Gangtok, Sikkim Mobile: 9434164582

Ms. Urvashi PoudyalBlock Development Officer,Rural Management & Development Department, BAC, Gangtok, SikkimTel: 03599-2141400

Uttar Pradesh

Mr. Girishchandra, Deputy DirectorPanchayati Raj Uttar Pradesh, Jawahar Bhavan, 6th Floor, LucknowTel: 0522-228646

Uttarakhand

Mr. D.R. Joshi, State Coordinator, TSCSwajal, Project Management Unit,Mussoorie Diversion Road,Dehra Dun 248 001Tel: 0135-2733455

Mr. R.S. Bhandari, Community Development Specialist P.M.V. Swajal, Mussoorie Diversion Road,Dehra Dun 248 001Tel: 0135-2733455

West Bengal

Mr. Chandan Sengupta, ChairmanTask Force on Total Sanitation CampaignPanchayat & Rural Development Department,Government of West Bengal, KB-18, Sector-3, Salt Lake, Kolkata, West BengalMobile: 09830303122Tel: 033-23582533

Mr. Abhijit Lahiri, District Coordinator (Sanitation)Murshidabad Zila Parishad,Panchanantala, Burhampur,Murshidabad, West Bengal 742 401Tel: 03482-274863

Agencies

Mr. Manish KumarWES SpecialistUNICEF73 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011-24690401

Mr. S. N. DaveWES SpecialistUNICEF73 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011-24690401



80

Mr. Rahul Bakare, DirectorRural GrantsARGHYAM12 Main Indira Nagar, BangaloreTel : 09902848844

Mr. Arumugam KalimuthuSenior Program Support ManagerPLANE-12, Kailash Colony, New DelhiTel: 011-46558484Mobile: 9868888820

Water And Sanitation Program

55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003Tel: 011 24690488/89 Fax: 011-24628250E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Christopher Juan Costain Regional Team Leader

Mr. Ajith C. KumarWater & Sanitation Specialist

Ms. Upneet SinghResearch Analyst

Ms. vandana MehraRegional Communication Officer

Ms .Geeta SharmaRegional Communication Officer

Mr. Mariappa KullappaWater & Sanitation Specialist

Dr. Suseel KumarWater & Sanitation Specialist

Mr. Kakumanu ArokiamConsultant

Mr. Manu PrakashConsultant

Ms. Aravinda SatyavadaConsultant

Ms. Prapti MittalConsultant

Ms. Lira Suri Team Assistant

Disclaimer

Raw data for graphs and figures in this report have been taken from the Total Sanitation Campaign online monitoring system in early 2010, but during different months (www.ddws.nic.in and www.nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in). Therefore,there may be some differences in graphs on related indicators due to the time lag between different points when information was accessed and subsequent updates to TSC/NGP websites.

National Workshop A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward

A National Workshop on ‘A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward’ was organised in New Delhi on 22 and 23 April 2010 by the Department of Drinking Water Supply (DDWS) in partnership with WSP. The objective of the workshop was to review the status of the TSC, identify the lessons learnt in the implementation of the campaign, and plan for the way forward to realise the goal of making the rural areas Nirmal a reality by 2012.

The workshop was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Rural Development, Ms. Agatha Sangma. From the national level, the Union Secretary Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Joint Secretary Mr. J.S. Mathur, Joint Secretary Mr. T.M. Vijay Bhaskar and Director Mr. Vijay Mittal, of the DDWS participated. In addition, representatives from 21 states and three sector partners (UNICEF, WaterAid and Arghyam) joined the event to share their insights and map the way forward. The total number of participants was around 85.

The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the emerging trends in TSC implementation over the last decade. On the first day, a presentation was made to highlight the performance on different components of the TSC and the fact that we have to assess our progress towards the Millennium Development Goal or Nirmal Bharat not just in terms of physical coverage but usage of the sanitation facilities created. There was also an opportunity to discuss the findings of two rapid assessments undertaken by WSP. The first was on the patterns of usage and quality of toilets in Nirmal Gram Puraskar winning Panchayats which put the focus on how we can address sustainability of progress under TSC. The second assessment shared the findings of the impact of access to sanitation and hygiene on health and focused on the fact that it was not singular interventions but an integrated package of sanitation and hygiene that is most effective in reaching health outcomes.

On the second day, the focus was on the results of a national level assessment of the TSC undertaken by WSP to understand the processes that underpin scaling up and sustainability of TSC. Based on findings from 22 districts across 21 states, the study underscored that districts/states that follow the TSC guidelines in the right spirit and implement the processes in the right way tend to reach the TSC goal faster. It was also agreed that enhancing subsidy was not a solution for increasing coverage and usage among the households. The workshop ended with concluding remarks from the Secretary, DDWS.



Water and Sanitation ProgramThe World Bank55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, IndiaPhone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

Ministry of Rural DevelopmentDepartment of Drinking Water and Sanitation9th Floor, Paryavaran BhawanCGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003, IndiaPhone: (91-11) 24362705Fax: (91-11) 24361062E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ddws.nic.in/

A Decade of the Total Sanitation - documents.worldbank.org...hygiene on health and focused on the...

Documents

Transcript of A Decade of the Total Sanitation - documents.worldbank.org...hygiene on health and focused on the...