This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Volume 1: Main Report
Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign
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.
Volume 1: Main Report
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign
Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
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.
000. according to the TSC online monitoring system. 2001) to more than 65 percent. A decade after the implementation of the campaign is an opportune time for the country to assess and ascertain its status. and the challenges faced. the successes achieved. Despite overall progress. and has achieved significant success over the last one decade. The benchmarking of the districts and states. which enables more focused attention on the lagging areas as well as more encouragement to the leaders. The TSC can be considered one of the most effective programmes in rural sanitation across the world for its focus on a community-led. resulting in rural populations living in a clean. The coverage has increased significantly from 21 percent in 2001 (Census. based on the TSC monitoring indicators. 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. demand-driven approach in reaching total sanitation to villages across the country. helps understand the relative position of states and districts. The number of Gram Panchayats which have won the Nirmal Gram Puraskar for achieving total sanitation has also increased to more than 22.Foreword The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) is a flagship programme of the Government of India. so that the remaining task of ensuring that the entire country becomes Nirmal can be adequately addressed. there still remain challenging states and districts where the programme is yet to show satisfactory results. healthy environment. Mathur Joint Secretary to the Government of India Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Ministry of Rural Development New Delhi 3 . J. S.
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4 .
1 Introduction / 33 3.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up / 60 4. REFERENCES / 75 NATIONAL WORkSHOP ON RURAL SANITATION: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / 76 5 . 4.7 Goal / 51 TSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES AT DISTRICT LEVEL: FINDINGS OF THE RAPID ASSESSMENT / 52 4.6 Outcomes / 49 3.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity / 57 4.2 Evolution of the Policy Framework for Rural Sanitation / 23 2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines / 24 2.5 Process / 45 3.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels / 26 A DECADE OF TSC: PROGRESS AND STATUS / 33 3.3 Inputs / 34 3.3 Methodology / 14 1.2 Recommendations / 73 2.1 Background / 23 2.4 Outputs / 40 3.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge / 33 3.2 Purpose / 13 1.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and Rating Scale (Cumulative) / 53 4.4 Organisation of this Report / 21 TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN / 23 2.1 Context / 13 1.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation / 54 4.5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain / 64 4.4 TSC Delivery Structure / 25 2.Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 11 1. 5. INTRODUCTION / 13 1.1 Summary / 73 5.6 Component 5: Financing and Incentives / 67 4.7 Component 6: Monitoring / 70 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 73 5. 3.
5: How much have States Spent out of TSC Funds? / 29 Figure 2.1: Table 1.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal? / 31 Figure 2.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes List of Tables Table 1.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across Different States? / 32 3.4: Table 1.1: Study Methodology / 14 2.2: Table 1. Crore) / 36 Figure 3. by State (INR.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey) / 35 Figure 3. by State (INR.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign? / 28 Figure 2.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 15 Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model – Indicators and Weighted Score / 17 Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands / 17 List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment / 18 Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes / 20 Population-linked Incentives / 25 Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 34 List of Figures 1.1: TSC Delivery Structure / 26 Figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States? / 31 Figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States? / 32 Figure 2.3: Table 1.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR) / 37 6 .1: TSC Objectives. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN Figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India / 27 Figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level? / 30 Figure 2.3: Financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the TSC Target? / 29 Figure 2. A DECADE Of TSC: PROGRESS AND STATUS Figure 3.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target? / 30 Figure 2. Crore) / 36 Figure 3.3: NGP Winners (2005-09) / 27 Figure 2.5: Table 2.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR. 1999 / 34 Figure 3. Crore) / 35 Figure 3. INTRODUCTION Figure 1.1: Table 3. Crore) / 37 Figure 3.
14: Figure 3.27: Figure 3.26: Figure 3.32: Figure 3.31: Figure 3.9: Figure 3.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22) / 66 Figure 4.Contents Figure 3. by State / 41 APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC / 42 BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC / 42 School Toilet Coverage under TSC / 43 Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC / 43 Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC / 44 RSM/PC Progress against Target / 44 Number of Villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up / 45 Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in Scaling Up Household Coverage / 46 Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 46 Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 47 Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 47 NGP Coverage in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 48 Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48 NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48 Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States / 49 NGP GPs.17: Figure 3.20: Figure 3.16: Figure 3.15: Figure 3.30: Figure 3.11: Figure 3.8: Figure 3.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking / 52 Figure 4.23: Figure 3.19: Figure 3.12: Figure 3.21: Figure 3.8: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22) / 71 Figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for TSC Implementation (n=22) / 55 Figure 4.25: Figure 3.9: Finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22) / 72 7 .10: Figure 3.34: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR) / 38 Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR) / 38 Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR) / 39 Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR) / 39 Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR) / 40 Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative) / 40 Household Toilet Construction Pace .5: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain (n=22) / 65 Figure 4.13: Figure 3. by State / 49 NGP State-wise Status (%) / 50 NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats / 50 Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household) Coverage (Year Wise) / 51 4.29: Figure 3. TSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES AT DISTRICT LEvEL: fINDINGS Of THE RAPID ASSESSMENT Figure 4.18: Figure 3.28: Figure 3.22: Figure 3.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and Capacity (n=22) / 58 Figure 4.7: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Financing and Incentives (n=22) / 68 Figure 4.33: Figure 3.24: Figure 3.Current and Required / 41 Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC.4: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up (n=22) / 61 Figure 4.
000 1.000.000.000.95 (April 2010 exchange rate) 8 .000.000 1.000 10.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes List of Boxes Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Box 7: Box 8: Box 9: Box 10: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts / 17 Nirmal Gram Puraskar / 25 Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim / 56 Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from kolhapur / 59 Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need / 60 Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District / 62 Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation: A Case Study of Sirsa District / 63 An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience / 67 Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District / 71 Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachch Puraskar / 72 Numbers 1 lakh 1 million 1 crore 1 billion 100.000 Currency US$ 1 = INR 45.
Abbreviations APL AWC BDO BP BPL BRGF CEO CLTS CRSP DDWS DEE DLM DPAP DWSC DWSM GDP GP HDI HH ICDS IEC IHHL IPC MDG MIS M&E MPR Above Poverty Line Anganwadi Centre Block Development Officer Block Panchayat Below Poverty Line Backward Regions Grant Fund Chief Executive Officer Community Led Total Sanitation Central Rural Sanitation Programme Department of Drinking Water Supply Department of Elementary Education District Level Monitoring Drought Prone Areas Programme District Water and Sanitation Committee District Water and Sanitation Mission Gross Domestic Product Gram Panchayat (village local self government) Human Development Index Household Integrated Child Development Scheme Information. Education and Communication individual household latrine Interpersonal Communication Millennium Development Goal Management Information System Monitoring and Evaluation Monthly Progress Report NFHS NGP National Family Health Survey Nirmal Gram Puraskar (Clean Village Prize) NGO non-government organisation NRHM National Rural Health Mission NSS National Sample Survey ODF open defecation free O&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 Group SLWM Solid and Liquid Waste Management SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Universal Education Campaign) SSHE School Sanitation and Hygiene Education SWSM State Water and Sanitation Mission TSC Total Sanitation Campaign UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Education Fund UT Union Territory WHO World Health Organization WSP Water and Sanitation Program ZP Zila Panchayat/Parishad (district local government) 9 .
media campaigns. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): The MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world’s main development challenges.400 to 2. Education. Panchayat Samiti at the block level and Zila Parishad at the district level. Anganwadi: Pre-school or crèche. these councils settled disputes between individuals and villages. 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. Information. it is usual to look at the level of personal expenditure or income required to satisfy a minimum consumption level. capacity-building activities. Panchayati Raj Institutions: The term ‘Panchayat’ literally means ‘council of five (wise and respected leaders’) and ‘Raj’ means governance.100 kilo calories per capita per day to define state-specific poverty lines separately for rural and urban areas.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Glossary (Above/Below) Poverty Line: To measure poverty. 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. Communication: IEC is the term used to describe software activities that support and promote the provision of programme services and facilities. block and district levels. for example. malaria and other diseases Ensure environmental sustainability 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. 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. Traditionally. It is called Gram Panchayat at the village level. These include: Goal 1: Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Goal 5: Goal 6: Goal 7: Goal 8: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Achieve universal primary education Promote gender equality and empower women Reduce child mortality Improve maternal health Combat HIV/AIDS. 10 . and so on. an initiative promoted under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) of the Government of India. the award carries tremendous prestige as it is given by the Hon’ble President of India to block. More than a fiscal incentive. community hygiene promotion sessions. The Planning Commission of the Government of India uses a food adequacy norm of 2.and district-level winners and by high ranking state dignitaries to village-level winners.
On the basis of the secondary data analysis and primary study on processes. has completed five years (2005 to date). is undertaken for both states and districts across the country. and the Nirmal Gram Puraskar. In addition. to support the lagging districts/states in effectively implementing the TSC in the true spirit. Recognising that the success of a sanitation campaign is dependent on how sustainable the outcomes are. this is compared with the inputs which have gone into the programme. The country has made significant progress in terms of coverage and 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). 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. to understand when the various states would achieve the ultimate objective of full coverage. then. 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. converts these into quantitative scores. based on current achievements. the higher levels of government (state and national governments) can facilitate this process through strong monitoring which tracks these processes and sustainability of outcomes.Executive Summary The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) of the Government of India has been in operation for over a decade (1999 to date). It identifies six qualitative indicators of the process of implementation at the district level. extrapolates. All that the districts that are lagging behind have to do is adopt these processes to achieve better outcomes as well. This benchmarking. However. outputs and outcomes at a national level and across the states. These indicators are then compared individually and in combination to benchmark the states. It. 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. 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. based on a combination of eight indicators. to understand the relative performance of the states. a fiscal incentive programme that rewards local governments (Green Panchayats) that achieve total sanitation. 11 . 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. and scores each of these districts on a process rating scale. so are the outcomes.
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 12 .
along with the relative neglect of sanitation in terms of development priorities. In addition. made the achievement of the goal of total sanitation a pressing challenge in rural India.1. In response to this challenge. and monitoring progress. Introduction 1. The responsibility for delivering on programme goals rests with local governments (Panchayati Raj Institutions — PRIs) with significant involvement of communities. replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. The TSC has recently completed a decade of implementation (1999-2009) and the NGP has completed five years of operation (2005-10). This fact. 1. 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.1 Context Open defecation is a traditional behaviour in rural India. The NGP offers a cash prize to motivate Gram Panchayats (GPs) to achieve total sanitation. combined with low awareness of improved hygiene behaviour. This. and recommend programmatic approaches through which these can be addressed. 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). Since its launch. The audience for this report includes policy-makers and implementers at national. identify gaps and lessons learnt. To give a fillip to the TSC. and the broader sanitation and hygiene community. this is an opportune time to assess the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state and district levels. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies. providing financial and capacity-building support. Although there is an undeniable upwards trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage. Therefore. the Government of India launched the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in 1999 with the goal of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. The analysis will focus on the successes and challenges faced in implementing the TSC and NGP. 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. 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 government introduced an innovative incentive programme known as Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) in 2003. national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals. 13 .2 Purpose To achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat (Clean India) within the TSC timeframe. 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. state and district levels. there is need for a clear understanding of the processes that underpin scaling up.
resources invested in the programme). Previously.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.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.3. A complete list of documents reviewed is given in the References at the end of this Report. efficiency can be derived from the rate of increase in outputs over time. figure 1.in 14 . and outcomes (for example. Each of these steps of the methodology followed for this study is described in detail below. 1. for example. comprising literature review. as can be seen from Figure 1.3 Methodology A three-step methodology was followed for this study. the number of toilets built at household. 1. studies on these programmes have been mainly conducted by the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as WaterAid. the number of PRIs that have won the NGP). Although the programme component of process is not explicitly covered by the online monitoring system. and collection and analysis of secondary and primary data. These studies have involved different objectives and followed a variety of approaches for sampling and analysis.nic. this can be derived from the data available on the other components. school and pre-school levels).1. to develop the methodology and objectives for this assessment. outputs (for example.1: Study Methodology Literature review Secondary data Methodology Quantitative analysis of TSC monitoring data TSC status and trends over a decade Benchmarking of state and district performance based on current performance Rating scale Primary data Study of sample districts Correlating implementation process with outcomes 1 The TSC online monitoring system can be accessed at www. This includes information on programme components such as inputs (for example.ddws.nic. TARU and Arghyam.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 1.in and the NGP online monitoring system at http://nirmalgrampuraskar.3.
and b) benchmarking of performance based on current status. 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.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC Context • No.1. output. of HH. school and pre-school toilet • Average expenditure per RSM/PC and SLWM Output Process Outcome GOAL • Sanitation • Acceleration target achieved rate of HH at national and sanitation state level coverage • % school • Reaching the sanitation poorest – ratio target achieved of BPL and APL • % RSM/PC HH coverage target achieved • Reaching the • % SLWM target backward and achieved drought-prone areas • Success rate of NGP applications • Number of NGP • Progress winners made towards • State-wise % of universal rural NGP winners sanitation • Number of NGP coverage vs total number of GPs HH: Household. a. RSM: Rural Sanitary Mart. APL: Above Poverty Line 15 . PC: Production Centre. a snapshot of the data indicators analysed under each programme component is shown in Table 1. and institutions without access to sanitation • Rural poverty (BPL distribution) Input • TSC financial allocation and expenditure • Average TSC project allocation per district • TSC allocation and expenditure on software and hardware per district • Average TSC software allocation and expenditure per HH • Average TSC expenditure per BPL HH toilet. BPL: Below Poverty Line.Introduction For this study. The results of these findings are presented in Chapter 3 of this report. Quantitative Analysis of TSC Status and Trends Secondary data have been collected on each programme component – input. Table 1. process and outcome – and the progress towards the overall goal of achieving universal sanitation coverage has been analysed. Each of these quantitative analyses is explained in detail below. SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management.
1. a research protocol was used as the basis for conducting key stakeholder interviews in the sample districts selected for this study. 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. The criteria for selection of districts included: • Geographical spread: Districts were selected from the north. were selected across the performance spectrum. criteria for stakeholder selection for interviews included: • Should have participated in the TSC programme for at least six months. for this study.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. east. This model comprises eight key performance indicators. 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. a. each of which is assigned a weighted score. Research Protocol To ensure consistency in the assessment findings. based on which an assessment of their processes was undertaken.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes b. south and north-east regions of the country. Selection of Stakeholders for Key Person Interviews In the sample districts. Selection of Districts A total of 22 districts across 21 states were selected for this study.3.4. This protocol 16 . On this basis. These were then compared with their overall performance outcomes to understand how the processes influence outcomes. Districts. The list of sample districts and states selected for this study is given in Table 1. Sampling Purposive sampling was used for the selection of districts and stakeholders for key person interviews as detailed below. The maximum cumulative performance score that a state or district can achieve is 100 and the minimum is zero. west. b. and • Should represent a key decision-maker or implementer at the district or block level. explained in Box 1. all states and districts have been divided into four colour-coded performance bands depending on the cumulative performance score achieved.
the number of NGP Panchayats is given more marks than the percentage TSC budget spent on toilets constructed.2: Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model – Indicators and Weighted Score # 1. The scores are divided into four colour-coded performance bands. Step 2: Assign scores to each indicator: Each indicator was assigned a weighted score which specified the maximum and minimum range of marks. of NGP Panchayats % NGP Panchayats CUMULATIvE PERfORMANCE SCORE Type Input Output Output Process Process Process Outcome Outcome Weighted Score Max. outputs. as shown in Table 1. Two principles underlying the strategy for assigning weighted scores were: • Higher priority was given to outcomes and processes relative to inputs and outputs. Performance Indicator % TSC budget spent % household toilets target achieved % school sanitation target achieved Financial efficiency (cost per NGP community) Average population per GP Success rate of NGP applications No.nic. 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. Therefore. 3. 8. 5 15 10 10 10 10 30 10 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 2. and • The maximum score was capped at 100.in). Min. Table 1. 7.Introduction Box 1: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts Step 1: Select indicators and collect data from TSC/NGP: For a balanced measurement across inputs. 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.3: Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands Below Average <25 Below Average Average Above Average Superior >75 Superior 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average 17 . eight indicators have been selected from the TSC online monitoring system. 4. 6. Table1.3. 5. processes and outcomes.
4: List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment Geographical Region District State Performance Band (based on cumulative performance score on the benchmarking model) Superior Above Average Average Below Average Below Average Below Average Superior Above Average Average Below Average Superior Above Average Average Average Below Average Superior Above Average Average Average Above Average Average Below Average >75 Superior North Sirsa Rewa Bikaner Mainpuri Hamirpur Amritsar Haryana Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Punjab Karnataka Tamil Nadu Kerala Andhra Pradesh West Bengal Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Bihar Orissa Maharashtra Gujarat Gujarat Maharashtra Sikkim Tripura Assam 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average South Shimoga Virudhunagar Kottayam Srikakulam East Bardhaman Surguja Gumla Begusarai Dhenkanal West Kolhapur Valsad Junagadh Akola North East East Sikkim West Tripura Jorhat Key: <25 Below Average comprised questions on six components that are considered essential for scaling up and sustaining the TSC. namely: 1. 4. 6. Strategy for TSC Implementation Institutional Structure and Capacity Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Financing and Incentives Monitoring 18 . 3.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Table 1. 5. 2.
Incentives can be financial or non-financial. starting with the lowest. At the implementation level. Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity. and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. administration. 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). Capacity refers to the availability of skilled human resources 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 and institutional context. an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC. technology promotion includes not only separate toilet components (for example. etc. The TSC guidelines advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives. and sanitary services for operation. Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up A programme approach consists of specific activities. Ensuring the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up. ability to monitor programme progress. maintenance and final disposal. and make revisions as needed. 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. Institutional frameworks should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. school sanitation and hygiene education. Component 5: Financing and Incentives Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities.) but also existing latrine technology options (for example. traps. 19 . released and spent. their timing and sequence.). ventilated double pit toilet. To effectively scale up and sustain TSC outcomes. given upfront or post achievement. institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. assign roles and responsibilities. eco-sanitation.Introduction Each component is described in detail below. This includes costs for activities under different programme components (for example. septic tank. budgetary allocations to effectively implement programme activities. A strategy can signal priorities. Monitoring should be carried out by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring should be collected from all levels.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated. etc. It also includes provision of masonry services for installation. and the resources to fulfil these effectively. pipes. sanitary pans. Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. etc.
budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit — community level engagement. ii. Therefore. v.5: Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes Topic 1 i. ii.g. 3 i. v. Table 1. Strategy for TSC Implementation TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the core group A well-defined strategy with goal. iii. Score 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Score Given 2 i.5. 20 . iv. appropriate technology Sub-total Institutional Structure and Capacity The nodal agency is functional and effective A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block levels (e. Rating Scale The rating scale was devised to provide a quantitative score card to analyse the findings of the research protocol. iii. The scale is depicted in Table 1. habitation) for implementing the programme effectively The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments Village-level institutions are set up and are effective Sub-total Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy Implementation is phased Demand creation depends on community mobilisation Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised Strategy is implemented at scale Sub-total Max. phasing. each component of the research protocol is further sub-divided into five dimensions which describe different field scenarios and carry one mark each. ii. The cumulative score on the rating scale is converted into a percentage.. In this scale. each component carries five marks and the maximum score on the rating scale is 30 marks. GP.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes c. iv. iv. iii. post-construction incentive. cluster. v.
iii. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Multiple technology options are promoted Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe Products and services sourced are easily available Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction Sub-total financing and Incentives Additional instalments are asked for on time There are no funding bottlenecks Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability) Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads namely SLWM. Chapter 1 is this introduction which provides the context and purpose of this study and details the methodology adopted for the study. ii. 21 . It also introduces the TSC performance benchmarking model which was used as the basis for selecting the sample districts for this study. iv.Introduction Topic 4 i. etc. IEC: Information. v. SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management.4 Organisation of this Report This report is divided into five chapters. IEC. including the research protocol and linked rating scale. iv. ii. BPL: Below Poverty Line. ODF: Open Defecation Free 1. v. ii. are being used) Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally Sub-total Monitoring Monitoring systems are available at the village level Monitoring system exist for block and district levels Monitoring system track both BPL and APL coverage accurately Monitoring for usage exists Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly Sub-total TOTAL TOTAL (%) Max.. iii. Score 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 30 100 Score Given 6 i. iii. Education and Communication. 5 i. iv. APL: Above Poverty Line. v.
it details national and state-level trends in the performance on TSC and NGP. Following this overview.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Chapter 2 provides an in-depth overview of the TSC and NGP incentive programme. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the primary study which tracks processes with outcomes. 22 . including key implementation principles. based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model introduced in the methodology. Each dimension of the assessment framework is used to analyse the linkage between the dimensions (individual and cumulative) and outcomes achieved. and institutional arrangements. shifts in the programme guidelines over the past decade. outputs. This is mainly quantitative data and analysis focuses on the linkages between inputs. processes and outcomes in terms of how they contribute towards the programme goal of universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. Chapter 3 presents the findings of an analysis of secondary data from the online monitoring systems of the TSC and NGP. Chapter 5 provides overall conclusions and summarises the recommendations of this study.
improved hygiene practices. In the central government. is estimated to be responsible for 22 percent of the country’s burden of disease (World Bank 2004).2. guides investment in the sector by allocating funding for strategic priorities.1 Background A broad definition of sanitation includes interventions for the safe management and disposal/re-use of excreta and solid and liquid waste. 2. It includes both infrastructure (for example. 2. Child under-nutrition. Lack of adequate sanitation and the linked burden of disease take an immense toll on life in India. therefore. particularly at puberty (Bruijne et al 2007).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. it received prominence from the Sixth Plan (1980-85) onwards amid the launch of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in 1980. Sanitation related illnesses in both children and adults deplete productivity and resources. the Planning Commission. through Five Year Plans. especially to women and young girls. each day. Children are particularly vulnerable (Murray and Lopez 1997). 2005-06) is among the highest in the world and nearly double that of Sub-Saharan Africa. appropriately considered a policy priority in India and the next section describes the evolution of the policy response to this issue. an estimated 1. 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. Access to safe sanitation in schools is also linked to continued education enrolment by young girls and teenage women. 23 . habit formation to switch from open to fixed point defecation). aggravated by diarrheal disease.2. Sanitation is. compost pits) and behaviour (for example. Disaggregating the impacts of sanitation by gender reveals that the privacy afforded by access to adequate sanitation facilities imparts a sense of dignity. providing financial and capacity-building support and monitoring progress.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.000 children under five die in the country because of diarrhoea alone. However. ultimately contributing to deprivation. Prevalence of child under-nutrition in India (47 percent according to National Family Health Survey III. Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign 2. latrines. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies/ guidelines. a preventable disease (WaterAid 2006). In addition.
and • Fiscal incentive in the form of a cash prize – NGP (Box 2). the TSC introduced the concept of a “demand-driven. once in 2004 and again in December 2007. and people must be motivated to end open defecation if rural sanitation outcomes are to be achieved. The CRSP interpreted sanitation as construction of household toilets. 2. the Government of India restructured the programme. post construction and usage. 660 crore2 was invested and over 90 lakh3 latrines constructed.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 2. and Panchayat governments started to be targeted. the Rural Development Department initiated India’s first national programme on rural sanitation.) and all establishments of the GP. This was further strengthened with the introduction of the NGP in 2003. 2 3 For explanation of ‘crore’. not only individual households but also communities. 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. A key learning that informed TSC design was that toilet construction does not automatically translate into toilet usage. secondary. Thus. refer to numbers on page 8. the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP).2. Education and Communication (IEC) to mobilise and motivate communities towards safe sanitation. middle.2. Ibid. 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. Key features of the TSC include: • A community-led approach with focus on collective achievement of total sanitation. • Flexible menu of technology options. • Development of a supply chain to meet the demand stimulated at the community level.3 Sector Reforms: Total Sanitation Campaign (1999-2012) In light of the relatively poor performance of the CRSP. The School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) component was strengthened. 2. The revision led to a focus on sanitary arrangements. the revision in TSC guidelines followed a mid-term review of the programme.2 Conventional Approach: Central Rural Sanitation Programme (1986-98) In 1986. 24 .3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines Since the launch of the TSC. contributing to the programme’s failure. • Minimum capital incentives only for Below Poverty Line (BPL) households. etc. In 2004. Although more than Rs. Accordingly. all levels of schools (primary. villages. which incentivised the achievement of collective outcomes in terms of 100 percent achievement of total sanitation by a GP. leading to the launch of the TSC in 1999. the programme guidelines have been modified twice. and the provision of toilets was extended to Anganwadi Centres (AWCs). community-led approach to total sanitation” (DDWS 1999). 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. and focused on the promotion of a single technology model (double pit pour-flush toilets) through hardware subsidies to generate demand. not merely on the construction of household toilets. • Focus on Information. The key issue of motivating behaviour change to end open defecation and use toilets was not addressed.
The amount of incentive is based on population as shown in Table 2. The NGP helps to raise the status of the winning Panchayat. Up to 10 percent of the project costs could now be used for meeting upfront capital costs incurred under the SLWM component. to be given post construction and verification of toilet usage.1: Population-linked Incentives (All figures in Rs.000) Particulars Population Criteria PRIs Individuals Organisations other than PRI Less than 1000 0.00 0. introduced in 2003. jointly financed by central and state governments with contribution from beneficiary households (generally in the ratio of 65:25:15). Department of Drinking Water Supply <http://nirmalgrampuraskar.in> In 2007. Zila Panchayats lead the implementation of the project – a District Water and Sanitation Mission (DWSM). 2. 100. Source: Government of India. the TSC guidelines were modified again to include an emphasis on developing community managed and ecologically safe environmental sanitation systems focusing on SLWM.50 Gram Panchayat 1000 to 1999 1. Above Poverty Line (APL) households and Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) centres.4 TSC Delivery Structure The TSC operates through district projects of three to five years’ duration. and create peer pressure among neighbouring Pancahyats as well as tough competition at all tiers of the administration.1.00 20.Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign Box 2: Nirmal Gram Puraskar The Nirmal Gram Puraskar of the Government of India.00 0.20 30.00 10.00 0. headed by the Zila Panchayat.10 5000 to 9999 4.35 0. with Deputy Commissioners/ 25 . Table 2. The IEC component was strengthened and the provision of a revolving fund was extended to community-based organisations.50 Providing post-achievement incentives is a significant shift from the upfront subsidy promoted by conventional rural sanitation programmes.00 50.20 0. At the district level. that is.000 to date.00 Block District 10000 Up 50001 Up Above and to and to 10 above 50000 above 10 lakh lakh 5.00 2000 to 4999 2. the incentive provision for BPL families.500. is an innovative programme that offers fiscal incentives in the form of a cash prize to local governments that achieve 100 percent sanitation. On account of rising input costs. was increased from Rs. 625 to a maximum of Rs.nic. they are 100 percent ODF and have tackled issues of solid and liquid waste management (SLWM).30 0. 2. 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.
training. at the block and the Panchayat levels. M&E State Zila Panchayat – DWSM (and other government and non-government institutions) Facilitate and support overall implementation. training. O&M: Operation and Maintenance 2. Panchayat Samitis and respective GPs are involved in the implementation of the TSC. GPs. mobilisation. 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. hygiene education. M&E District Panchayat Samiti (Extension workers of government and non-government organisations) Institution building (e. monitoring Block Gram Panchayat (Motivators) Community Institution building. training and inter-sectoral coordination State Government (Nodal Department) Funding. development of state action plan. M&E.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels 2. facilitate construction of hardware.g. O&M village 26 M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation. is set up. development of action plan. post-TSC and -NGP. Watsan committee). . technical support. facilitate supply chains. figure 2. hygiene education.1 TSC Performance at National Level The TSC is currently being implemented at scale in 606 districts of 30 states/Union Territories (UTs).A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Collectors/Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and other heads of departments as members.. inter-sectoral coordination. technical support.1: TSC Delivery Structure Government of India (Ministry of Rural Development. Department of Drinking Water Supply) Centre Funding. As can be seen from Figure 2.2.1. monitoring.5. inter-sectoral coordination. Similarly. after sluggish progress throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The TSC delivery structure is shown in Figure 2.
4% 23% 27% 31% 61% 57% 2005 onwards: Nirmal Gram Puraskar 14% 6% 17% 18% 1980 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Government of India.in.569 5.000 5. 27 2010 .9% 22. Accessed in March 2010.in. figure 2.nic.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India 70 60 50 PERCENT 40 30 20 10 0 1% 11% 4% 3% 10% 11% 65% 1980-90: International Drinking Water Supply & 1986-99: Central Rural Sanitation Sanitation Programme Decade 1999 onwards: Total Sanitation Campaign 45% 38% 21.000 20.000 15.Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign figure 2. Annex 34. The number of winners has gone up from approximately 40 in 2005 to 22. Accessed in March 2010. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.000 38 798 NGPs – annual NGPs – cumulative 2007 2008 2009 0 2005 2006 Source: Government of India.000 10. as can be seen from Figure 2. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.569 in 2009.013 22.3.3: NGP Winners (2005-09) 25. the NGP has been very successful as a fiscal incentive for achievement of sanitation outcomes.743 18. Since its launch. The number of NGPs in each state across the years is provided in Volume 2.
ranks districts and states based on performance (as against alphabetically) (for more details of this model.2 TSC Performance at State Level Despite the undeniable upward trend at the national level. Annex 2 (rank wise) and Volume 2. Annex 3 (alphabetically). along with the aggregate score for each state. The performance of different states in terms of cumulative score is presented in Figure 2. a.5). thereafter. 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 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 88 41 15 15 19 21 22 23 25 29 35 39 39 41 PERCENT Key: Performance Band The detailed score for each indicator. Annex 1.5. 28 Pu Ha du vel ch i M err an y ip ur Go a Ar un J& ac K M ha eg l ha P la As ya sa Pu m nj a Bih b M izo ar ra Or m Ra iss ja a Na stha Ut ga n ta lan ra d Jh kha ar nd kh an Ch Tri d pu U hat r An ttar tisg a dh Pr arh M ra ad ad Pr es hy ad h a Pr esh Ka ade rn sh at ak Sik a k G im Hi uja m ra ac t h Ha al P Ta rya m n W il N a es ad M t Be u ah n ar ga as l ht r Ke a ra la <25 Below Average 26-49 Average 50-74 Above Average >75 Superior DN 44 45 46 47 48 59 60 60 62 63 64 65 70 70 76 79 . 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. see Box 1 on page 17). b. This section presents the performance of states on the TSC based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model. The rank of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume 2. which tracks performance based on a mix of outcome. figure 2. output. and. processes and input indicators.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 2.6). these aggregates disguise state-level disparities in performance on the TSC. and overall rank and score for each district is given in Volume 2.4 and the scores achieved on constituent indicators are presented in the remainder of this section.
6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the TSC Target? 120 100 PERCENT 59 45 48 87 90 96 97 98 % Household Latrines Achieved 72 73 74 23 0 Da dr Source: Government of India.in.7). Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws. By recognising and giving a higher weight to high success rate. the number of winners trails the number of applicants in any year.956 in 2009. c. Indicator 4 (Process): Success Rate of NGP Applications The number of NGP applications has been increasingly geometrically.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC funds? 150 100 40 % TSC Budget Spent 75 76 101 PERCENT 26 28 26 29 23 25 16 0 Da dr a Source: Government of India. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws. from 464 in 2005 to 13.Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign figure 2. figure 2.nic.nic.in. d.8). the benchmarking model rewards process and a good internal monitoring system to evaluate ODF applications. States (and districts) may put in as many applications. Indicator 3 (Output): Percent School Sanitation Target Achieved This indicator measures an output – the percentage of school toilets constructed against the target (Figure 2. rH a M vel Ja m Pud anip i m u uch ur & Ka erry sh m i Ar Bih r un ar ac ha Ass l P am ra Na des ga h M la eg nd Jh hala ar ya kh an d Ra Oris jas sa K th Ch arna an ha ta tti ka sg a Ut Pu rh M ta nj ad ra ab hy kh a a Ut Pra nd ta d M r P es An ah rad h dh ara esh ra sh P tr Ta rade a m W il N sh es a t B du en ga l Hi Go m ac G a ha uja l P ra ra t d Ha esh rya Tri na M pura izo ra Ke m ra Sik la kim 29 a & Na ga 1 9 20 12 15 19 25 28 40 31 32 36 38 42 45 60 53 60 61 80 109 rH av Pu eli M nja Ja a b m Pu nip m du ur u & che Ka r r y sh m i Bih r ar M Assa eg m h Ra alay Ut j a a ta sth ra an kh an Hi Or d m iss Ar ach a un al G ac Pr oa ha ad l P es r h Jh ade ar sh k Ka han rn d An N atak a M dhra gala a ad P n hy ra d a d M Pra esh ah d Ch aras esh h h W attis tra es ga t B rh en ga Ta Guja l m ra il N t a Ut Ha du ta rya rP n ra a de s Ke h M rala i zo ra Tri m pu r Si k a ki m & Na ga 2 4 14 15 19 20 20 24 25 29 50 41 42 44 49 54 58 66 70 71 136 . Simultaneously. but the true test of outcome achievement is the number of NGP winners (Figure 2.
Indicator 5 (Process): Average Population per Gram Panchayat The benchmarking model is not merely based on the number of NGP Gram Panchayats.nic.9).000. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level? 120 100 PERCENT 80 60 40 20 0 Success Rate in NGP Till Date Da Source: Government of India. and the balance states where the average GP population is below 5. 30 dr ga Go Pu r Ha a du ve ch li M err izo y r Gu am jar Ut Raja at ta sth rP a ra n Ar de un sh ac M ha Trip ad l P ur hy ra a a d Ch Pra esh ha de tti sh sg An ar dh h ra Bih Pr ar ad e Ut Pu sh ta nja ra kh b Ha and rya n Or a M issa Ja W a m e n m st ipu u Be r & n Ka ga sh l m A ir Hi m Jha ssa ac rk m ha ha l P nd ra Na des g h M ala e M gh nd ah ala ar ya Ta ash m tr a il Ka Nad rn u at ak Ke a ra Sik la kim a & Na r Pu Ha du vel M ch i eg err h y Na alay ga a M lan Hi We an d m st ipu ac ha Ben r l P ga ra l Ja de m sh m u & Bih Ut Kas ar ta hm ra kh i r an d Go A a Ra ssam jas An Jha tha dh rk n ra han Pr d Ar ad un es ac ha Ori h Ut l Pra ssa ta d r P es ra h d Tri esh p M Pu ura ah nj a a Ta rash b m tr C i M hh l Na a ad at du hy tisg a Pr arh ad es Ke h Ha rala Ka ryan rn a at ak Si k a M ki m i zo ra Gu m jar at & Na ga 25 44 47 60 51 51 55 59 61 66 80 77 80 100 90 90 91 93 94 95 97 99 100 . Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws. but also factors such as the size of each GP and the corresponding level of effort required to make a GP Nirmal (Figure 2. 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.nic.000 receive a zero. figure 2.in.000.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes figure 2. five points to states where the average GP population is above 5.000 but less than 15.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target? 120 94 94 91 108 98 44 44 32 21 0 0 0 12 20 20 21 22 25 27 28 32 36 39 39 40 45 46 51 60 63 64 65 68 85 % School Sanitation Achieved 100 98 87 PERCENT 55 40 20 0 0 0 Da dr a Source: Government of India. e.in.
10).000 5. Indicator 6 (Process): financial Efficiency This indicator measures return on investment by calculating the amount of TSC budget spent to make a Panchayat Nirmal. figure 2.in figure 2.000 30. the benchmarking model only awards bonus points to the top five most financially efficient states. it takes the figure for TSC spend to date and divides it by the number of NGPs winners by a state to date.000 10.000 20. 31 7 8 8 12 17 28 34 35 44 58 80 89 97 114 149 183 212 370 654 un Me ac gh ha al l P aya ra M de Ut izo sh ta ra ra m kh M and an Hi ip m u ac ha Pun r l P ja C r b M hha ade ad tt sh hy isg a M Pra arh ah d ar esh as h Gu tra jar a Ta Trip t m ur il N a An a dh Har du ya ra n Ja Utta Prad a m m r Pr esh u & ade Ka sh sh m Sik ir kim Ra G jas oa th a Or n Jh ar issa k Ka han rn d Da at dr a a As ka an sa d m Na ga Bih W r H ar es av t B eli e Na ng ga al lan Ke d Pu du rala ch er ry financial Efficiency (Rs.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States? Average GP Population 40. in lakhs) Ar .000 Average Pop b/w 5. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign f. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.000 25.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal? 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 675 50 51 33 19 25 17 6 Hi Ma m ha ac ra ha sh l Ut Pra tra ta de ra sh kh an Pu d nj Ha ab rya n Ke a ra Sik la k G im Ta uja m ra i t Ka l Na rn du M M ata ad eg k hy ha a a la Pr ya a Na des W ga h es la t B nd en g Ch Tr al An ha ipu dh ttis ra ra ga Pr rh a M desh izo Ra ra Ar j m un Jh asth ac ark an ha h Ut l Pr and ta ad r P es ra h de sh Ja Bih m m ar u & Oris Ka sa sh M mi an r Da ip dr a As ur an sa d m Na ga Go r a Pu Hav du eli ch er ry Source: Government of India. while giving zero points to the remaining states (Figure 2.000 Average Pop >15.001 and 15.in.000 0 Average Pop <5. Therefore.000 15.nic.000 35.nic.000 Source: Government of India. To incentivise financial efficiency.
000 3. Annex 36.000 0 National Average = 753 1.12).096 96 16 6 6 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 15 16 17 30 33 79 99 figure 2.061 876 418 113 164 200 Da dr Source: Government of India.512 . Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.000 2. The percentage of NGP winners of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume 2. (Other things being equal.389 1. This is equal to the cumulative number of NGPs won by a state (Figure 2. 32 Da m dr ir a Go & M Na an a ga ipu r Pu Ha r du ve ch li e Pu rry nj A ab Ar un Me ssa ac gh m h a Ut al Pr laya ta ad rP e ra sh Ra des jas h th a Bih n ar An M Oris sa dh izo ra ra Ch Pra m ha de tti sh Jh sga a rh M Utt rkha ad ar nd hy akh a Pr and ad Tri esh pu Gu ra Ka ja rn rat Hi at m ac Ha aka ha ry l P an Ta rade a m M il N sh ah a d W aras u es ht t B ra e Na ng ga al lan Ke d ra Sik la kim Ja m m u & Ka sh ga Go Pu r Ha a du ve Ja ch li m e Ar mu Man rry un & i ac Ka pur ha sh l P mi ra r de As sh M sam iz Na oram M gal eg an ha d la Pu ya n Tri jab pu r Or a iss Sik a kim Ra Bih ja ar Jh stha Hi Ut arkh n m ta a ac ra nd ha kh Ch l Pra and ha de tti sh Ka sga rn rh at a Ke ka ra W Ha la An est ryan dh Be a r n Ut a Pr gal ta ad M ad r Pr esh hy ad a Pr esh ad e G s Ta uja h m r M il N at ah ad ar as u ht ra a & Na 12 14 155 24 63 207 31 50 96 225 0 0 0 2 520 522 845 989 1.000 1.).087 1.nic.263 1. 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. State A is 40 percent NGP while State B is only 8 percent NGP.in. 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.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes g.11). let us say State A has 50 GPs and State B has 500.670 2.000 6.in. h. the benchmarking model recognises this and is designed to reward both absolute and percentage achievement.000 5.nic. 8. Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States? 9. Both states have been able to achieve 20 NGP Panchayats.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across Different States? 120 100 PERCENT 80 60 40 20 0 Source: Government of India.000 4. Therefore.000 8. while the absolute number of NGP achievement is the same. Therefore. Recognising and giving points to percentage NGP achievement helps to neutralise the ‘low base effect’.000 7. figure 2.
1). The specific indicators analysed under each component are detailed in Table 3. This meant the construction of about 12 crore4 toilets at the beginning of the campaign (1999) (Figure 3. and rate of return. and • Projections on when India will reach the TSC goal of universal sanitation coverage. This information is presented across six sections: • Context in terms of the scale of the sanitation challenge. A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3. success rate of NGP applications. 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.2. inclusion.1.1 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 2012.2). 33 . 47 percent of all households in India were classified as BPL (Figure 3. It also provides information on the allocation to project hardware and software components within the overall financial envelope. state and district levels. The data have been accessed in March 2010 from the TSC and NGP Management Information System (MIS). In 1999. 3.2.3. • Programme inputs begin with the overall TSC budget and then focus on the average project expenditure per district. a wealth of information at the national. 3. • Programme processes in terms of acceleration of scale-up. • Outputs such as construction of toilets in households and schools. defined by the BPL survey of the Government of India. 4 120 million. according to the TSC baseline survey.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge 3.2 Rural Poverty TSC envisaged financial support to the poorer households.1 Introduction This chapter analyses data from the online monitoring system of the TSC and NGP. • Outcomes such as the number of NGP winners.
3 Inputs The TSC uses the resources of central and state governments and contributions from beneficiaries to promote access to sanitation facilities.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC Context • No of HHs and institutions without access to sanitation • Rural poverty (BPL distribution) Input • TSC financial allocation and expenditure • Average TSC project allocation per district • TSC allocation and expenditure on software and hardware per district • Average TSC software allocation and expenditure per household • Average TSC expenditure per BPL household toilet.000 x100000 800 611 600 400 200 591 12 0 IHHL IHHL Total IHHL APL IHHL BPL School Toilets Pre-school Toilet 3. 34 4 . This section looks at financial allocation and expenditure on the project till date. 1999 1.202 1.1: TSC Objectives.400 1.200 1.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Table 3. school and pre-school toilet • Average expenditure per RSM/PC and SLWM Output Process Outcome GOAL • Sanitation • Acceleration target achieved rate of HH at national and sanitation state level coverage • % school • Reaching the sanitation poorest – ratio target achieved of BPL and APL • % RSM/PC HHs coverage target achieved • Reaching the • % SLWM target backward and achieved drought-prone areas • Success rate of NGP applications • Number of NGP • Progress winners made towards • State-wise % of universal rural NGP winners sanitation • Number of coverage NGPs vs total number of GPs figure 3.
3. Crore) 20. figure 3.000 4.000 4.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 76 84 86 54 PERCENT 44 44 See Volume 2. This is in addition to the additional expenditure by the BPL families5 and expenditure by the APL families.3).888 million).3. they may contribute a higher amount to construct a better quality of toilet.000 18.369 11. Annex 4 for calculations leading to this graph.094 17. 2.776 2.155 4. however. 17.1 TSC financial Allocation and Expenditure TSC allocation and expenditure – national Under the TSC.A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status figure 3. the total commitment to date is approximately Rs.000 Total Centre State See Volume 2.016 1.000 2. state government and beneficiaries (BPL families). G Pu oa R n ac aja jab ha sth l P an ra d Ha esh M ah rya U ar na M ttar ash ad Pr tra hy ad a Pr esh ad e Gu sh Ka j a Ut rna rat ta ta r a ka kh an d W es Ind t B ia en g Ch K al ha era l t Ta tisg a m ar il N h ad u Bih M ar an ip Sik ur An dh A kim ra ssa m P Jh rade ar sh kh an Or d i T ssa M ripu eg ra h Na alay ga a Ar la un ac Miz nd ha or l P am ra de sh Hi m Allocation Expenditure Beneficiary 6 21 23 24 24 36 42 45 45 47 48 49 50 54 55 59 60 64 64 66 70 72 35 .000 16. Annex 5 for calculations leading to this graph.000 6.4 percent) (Figure 3. 7. The allocation and expenditure is divided between the national government.203 2. both of which are not captured by the online monitoring system of the TSC. in practice.000 INR/CRORES 12.886 14.011 5 BPL families have to contribute about Rs.000 8.016 crore (US$ 438 million or 11.5) to avail of the government’s support to construct a toilet.000 10. of which BPL households have committed Rs. 300 (US$ 6.3: financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR.866 crore (US$ 3.
Only two or three states have been able to show consistency in using hardware funds. the allocation for implementing the TSC is Rs. The TSC budget for each district is given in Volume 2.6 million) per district.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR. figure 3. most others exhibit low absorption capacity. Crore) 70 – INR/CRORES 44 73 30 11 5 4 4 5 7 9 11 11 12 15 15 18 19 23 25 26 30 31 31 32 37 38 38 50 31 28 31 35 37 44 46 9 27 27 26 26 27 26 16 13 17 20 21 22 17 13 12 11 10 10 11 13 16 9 9 9 10 7 7 6 8 8 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 0 1 80 – 60 – 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 – 0– Ar See Volume 2. figure 3.7 million) while the expenditure is just over Rs.5). 26 crore (US$ 5. 11 crore (US$ 2. Annex 8 for calculations leading to this graph.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District. TSC hardware allocation and expenditure – per district.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes TSC allocation and expenditure – per district. by State (INR. 73 crore in Andhra Pradesh (Figure 3. 30 crore (US$ 6.4). state wise Splitting the average allocation by hardware and software at the district level shows that the average hardware allocation per district is Rs. Crore) 60 – INR/CRORES 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 – 0– 65 70 – Ar un Hardware allocation per district See Volume 2. ranging from Rs. On an average. Annex 7.4 million) which is 42 percent (Figure 3. state wise The unit for implementation of the TSC is the district. 4 crore in Arunachal Pradesh to Rs. Annex 6 for calculations leading to this graph. 36 es h Go S a Na ikkim ga l Ha and rya Pu na M nja Hi U an b m ttr ip ac ak ur ha h l P an d M rade eg sh ha lay Ja Ke a m ra m u Trip la & Ka ura sh Gu mir M ad Raj jara hy ast t a Pr han Ka ade rn sh at ak a Jh Ind ar ia Ta kha m n il N d a M A du ah ssa Ch ara m h sh Ut atti tra ta sg r P ar ra h de W O sh es ris t B sa en An ga dh ra Bih l Pr ar ad es h Hardware expenditure per district ac ha lP ra d 2 3 3 5 6 10 23 ra M desh izo ra Sik m kim Na G ga oa lan Ha d ry M ana an ip Hi Ut Pu ur m tar nja ac ak b ha h l P an d M rade eg sh ha lay Ja Ke a m ra m u Trip la & Ka ura sh Gu mir j M ad Raja arat hy st h a Pr an Ka ade rn sh at ak a In di Ta Ass a m am il N Jh ad M ark u ah h Ch ara and h sh Ut atti tra ta sg r P ar ra h de W O sh es ris t B sa en An ga dh ra Bih l Pr ar ad es h un ac ha lP 52 .
7 6. figure 3.7 million) with corresponding expenditure being recorded as just Rs.0 1.7 1.5 2.9 .9 5. by State (INR. Annex 9 for calculations leading to this graph.0 950 816 718 1.5 1.9 3.7 .0 .1 .6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District.9 1. state wise The average software allocation is Rs.0 – 5.2 2.0 – 4.3 1.2 .4 2.2 2.24 million) which translates into 32 percent against the average allocation (Figure 3.0 – 2.5 19 .A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status TSC software allocation and expenditure – per district.8 1.4 . 1.2 4.3 1.7 .4 . figure 3.3 .7).6).6 1.0 – .6 5.2 . 181 (US$ 4) per household while average software expenditure is Rs.8 .1 crore (US$ 0. Crore) 7.1 3.4 1.8 .0 – INR/CRORES 5. state wise The average software allocation per household is Rs.7 . 37 Ta m W il N es ad Ut t B u An tar eng dh Pra al ra de Ut Prad sh ta ra esh k Ra han jas d th Tri an pu Gu ra j Ha arat rya Ka M rna na ah ta ar ka as ht ra Bih a In r M di ad Ja hy As a m a sa m Pr m u & ade Ch Kas sh Hi m ha hm ac tti ir ha sg l P arh ra de s Or h Jh ar issa kh a Pu nd nj a K b Na era ga la lan d M Goa an ip Ar S ur un Me ikk ac gh im ha al l P ay ra a M desh izo ra m Average expenditure household ra M desh iz Na oram ga lan d Ut ta Go ra kh a an Sik d M kim an Ha ipur Hi rya m ac Pu na ha l P njab M rade eg sh ha Ja m la m Tri ya u & pu Ka ra sh m Ke ir ra As la s Gu am Ta jar m il at Ka Nad rn u Ra atak jas a th an Ut ta In M r P di ad hy rad a a Pr esh Jh ade ar sh kh an d M ah Bih Ch ara ar ha sht W ttis ra es ga t B rh en An dh O gal ra ris Pr sa ad es h Average software expenditure per district un ac ha lP 5.2 4.2 1.9 Ar Average software allocation per district See Volume 2.3 2.6 2.7 1.0 – 0. 4 crore (US$ 0.5 .4 .5) (Figure 3.6 1.6 1.6 313 588 7.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR) 2500 – 2000 – 1500 – INR 1000 – 500 – 0– Software allocation per household See Volume 2.4 1.9 2439 680 114 74 123 54 125 70 152 68 153 78 163 130 165 92 170 98 171 117 172 102 178 142 179 159 181 102 211 183 241 132 257 142 267 181 276 155 282 106 286 144 295 16 314 194 363 398 472 578 509 193 8.4 3.3 1.1 1.0 2.0 – 3.4 .0 – 1.5 3. 102 (US$ 2.5 .9 1.7 1.0 – 6. TSC software allocation and expenditure – per household. Annex 10 for calculations leading to this graph.9 .1 3.
407 19.098 20.078 20.000 – 2.500 – 4.171 1.563 1.000 – 5.081 1.000 – 1.473 18.498 19.529 20.889 2.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR) 0– The TSC provides financial support (post-construction incentives) for BPL households (APL households are mobilised to invest on their own to construct toilets).314 19.500 – 2.491 1.492 15.085 1.000 – 20.000 – 30.012 1.590 1. 1.019 1. In this context.320 17.155 1.856 20.389 1.000 – 3.123 1.000 – Pu n 5.9).146 1.603 12.979 23.274 1.INR INR See Volume 2.520 19.338 1.148 20.721 15.991 15.221 17.020 12.301 3.949 25.452 17.8).320 (US$ 384) (Figure 3.981 16.000 – m 10.425 1. state wise A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes The average school toilet expenditure is Rs. Annex 12 for calculations leading to this graph.437 15.307 1.274 (US$ 28) (Figure 3.884 6. the average expenditure per BPL household toilets is Rs.299 2.443 18.091 1. ac TSC hardware expenditure – per school sanitation facility.277 19. Annex 11 for calculations leading to this graph.500 – 3. state wise figure 3.000 – 25. 17. figure 3.756 19.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR) 38 Hi 500 – 0– 156 341 610 907 912 947 1.779 1.000 – 15.190 1.020 19. jab Go M a a Ka nip rn ur at a Tri ka pu Ra jas ra th a Ut ta Or n An r iss dh Pra a ra de Pr sh Hi ad m es ac h M hal In ad P dia ra hy a de Ja Ma Prad sh m m har esh u & asht Ka ra sh Gu mir Ar un jar ac a ha B t l P iha Ch ra r ha de tti sh s M garh izo Jh ra W arkh m es an tB d en g Ke al ra l Ta Ass a m am Ut il N ta ad ra kh u Ha and rya n Sik a Na kim M gala eg nd ha lay a ha Pun l j W Pra ab es de t B sh e Ra nga jas l th Tri an pu M r An ah Oris a ar sa dh a ra sh Pr tra Ja ad m m Ha esh u & rya K n Ta ash a m m il ir Ka Nad rn u Ut ta ata ra ka kh a Gu nd Jh jar ar at kh an Ke d ra la In di a M ad Mi Goa hy zo a ra Pr m Ar ad un es h ac ha Bih lP ar ra d As esh N sa Ch aga m ha lan tti d sg Ut Ma arh ta ni r P pu M rade r eg sh ha la Sik ya kim .202 20. TSC hardware expenditure – per BPL household.472 1.888 See Volume 2.
192 54.19.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR) TSC hardware expenditure – per RSM/Production Centre (PC).684 4.11).56.00. See Volume 2.600 2.829 4.489 5.000 – 20.946 1.50.684 (US$ 104) (Figure 3.293 4.000 – 25.62.673 1.346 Pu An n dh O jab M ra ri s a Ar dh Prad sa un ya es ac Pra h ha d e l Ut Pra sh ta de ra sh kh an Ke d ra la Hi m Ra Go ac ja a ha st l P ha ra n de Ch Gu sh ha jar tti at sg ar h Ka Ind rn ia at Ut Ha aka ta rya r M Pra na ah de ar sh as Ja m Miz htra m u ora Ka m Na shm g ir Jh alan ar kh d a Tri nd pu W A ra es ssa tB m en ga Ta Bi l m ha i M l Na r eg du ha la Sik ya M kim an ip ur A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 39 .791 4.480 54.141) (Figure 3.291 1.750 25.50.000 – 483 2. TSC hardware expenditure – per Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation facility.135 30.217 3.854 See Volume 2.000 – 5.000 – 5.921 5.54. state wise M Go izo a ra Pu m nj a Sik b kim Or is Tri sa pu An ra dh ra Bih W Pra ar es de Ut t Be sh ta ng M rakh al ah a ar nd as h Gu tra jar at Ka Ind rn ia at a As ka Jh sa ar m kh M ad Raj and hy ast a Pr han ad es Ke h Ta m ral il N a Ha adu ry M a Ja Utt an na m ar ip Ar mu Pra ur un & de s Hi acha Kash h m ac l Pr mir ha ad Ch l Pr esh ha ad tti esh sh Na gar h M gala eg nd ha lay a 77.931 2. 64.599 64.000 – 0– 1.662 4.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR) figure 3.50. state wise The expenditure on pre-school toilet (Aganwadi) is Rs.INR INR 10.615 4.776 4.162 41.68.087 39.811 4.000 – 30.000 – 15.682 4.700 figure 3.000 – 50.979 6.00.000 – 3.18.00.230 5. 4.815 4.000 – 0– 0 0 0 0 13.10).84.678 4.736 4.000 – 3.50.869 3.19. The average district expenditure on setting up RSMs/PCs is Rs.000 – 2.209 4.682 5.342 5.000 2.70.00.590 20.51.273 2.167 2.13.029 1.447 9.122 41.401 76.13.000 – 4.340 4.398 3.000 – 4.600 5.030 3. 1. Annex 13 for calculations leading to this graph.854 (US$ 1.523 4.003 1. Annex 14 for calculations leading to this graph.226 1.00.000 – 2.700 2.62.000 76.
756 35. state wise The average district expenditure on SLWM initiatives is Rs.000 – 8.1 11.48 crore BPL toilets. more than 6.644 7.750 280.2 610.400 – 1.098 34.301 32.948 535. and progress in terms of the number of RSMs set up and SLWM works undertaken is presented here.000 – 27.000 – 4.003 6.12).032 8.00. Schools and Pre-schools Under TSC.333 40. schools and pre-schools.73 3.00.000 – 14.359 .591 39.201.236 4.000 – 6. 1.7 Ar 643.000 – INR 10. Annex 15 for calculations leading to this graph.000 – 12.7 295.000 – 800 – 600 – 400 – 200 – 0– Target 40 IHHL Total IHHL BPL IHHL APL 1.4 School Toilets Pre-school Toilets Community Toilets Progress 0.18 46.16 4.00.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes TSC expenditure on SLWM.97 9.00.588 27. 40.13).43 crore toilets have been constructed – 3.4 Outputs The outputs of the TSC in terms of toilets constructed in households. figure 3. and 2.0 348.3 591.00.091 36.200 – x100000 1.367 148.841 33.784 3.089 0.1 Toilets Constructed in Households.00.4.3 sh eg Go h a Na alay ga a la Pu nd nj W Tri ab es pu M t Be ra ah ng ar al Hi a m Ka sht ac rn ra ha at l P ak ra a Ra des jas h M th ad a hy O n a riss P Ut rad a tra es kh h an Ch ha Ass d tti am sh ga rh Ja Bih m m Ha ar u & rya Ka na sh M mi an r ip Gu ur jar at Jh Ind Ut ark ia ta ha rP n ra d de s Ke h ra S la An Tam ikki dh il m ra Na Pr du a M desh izo ra m M un ac ha lP ra de 0 20.00. 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative) 1.95 crore APL toilets (Figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR) 16.458 81.00.207 126. 3.739 745 2.921 6.494.000 – 0 0 0 0 0 – See Volume 2.429 figure 3.089 (US$ 890) (Figure 3.
138 1.324 1.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace .099 6.125 1. constructs 29.199 5.109 5.342 186 2.498 household toilets per day in the next two years to achieve 100 percent coverage which means doubling its efforts (Figure 3.914 40% – 253 135 3. India needs to construct more than 76.498 12.306 3.329 .15).520 3.459 4. on an average. Annex 17 for calculations leading to this graph. figure 3. Construction of IHHL under TSC – current and required pace figure 3.5 crore household toilets still need to be constructed – 3.479 1.14).300 3. However.089 659 2.989 1.826 76.518 330 30% – 1.155 6. India.1 crore APL and 2.429 3.4 crore BPL.085 5.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC.A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status More than 5. 41 an Ka ipur sh m i Ar Bih r un ac ar ha Ass l P am M rade eg sh h Na alay g a Jh alan ar kh d an Or d R is Ch ajas sa ha tha tti n Ka sga Ut rna rh ta ta ra ka kh M an ad d hy In a Pr dia ad Ut P esh ta un r j M Pra ab An ah de dh ara sh ra sh P tr Ta rad a m es W il N h es ad tB u en ga Hi l Go m ac G a ha uja l P ra ra t d Ha esh rya Tri na M pur izo a ra Ke m ra Sik la kim u & Ja m m M 9 20 – 15 20 23 26 31 31 40 – 32 36 38 45 46 48 60 – 54 59 59 60 62 72 80 – 73 74 87 91 100 – 97 98 102 109 120 – Ke ra Sik la M kim izo ra m Go Tri a Hi pu m Ar ach Har ra un al ya ac Pr na ha ad l P es ra h Na des h M gala eg nd ha la Ut Man ya ta ip ra ur kh a Pu nd Ja m nj m a u Gu b & jar Ch Kas at ha hm t Ta tisg ir m ar W il N h es ad tB u Jh eng ar al kh a As nd M K sa ad ar h n m An ya ata dh Pra ka ra de M Pra sh ah de ar sh a Ra sht jas ra th a Ut ta Or n r P iss ra a de sh Bih a In r di a Construction capacity needed per day to reach 100% coverage by 2012 789 23 26 25 32 80 24 80 10% – 29.106 2.288 1.551 193 115 738 742 266 450 949 888 0% – Current construction capacity per day See Volume 2. 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. Currently. by State 97 PERCENT 54 0– See Volume 2.Current and Required RATE OF CONSTRUCTION PER DAY 90% – 80% – 60% – 50% – 627 16 103 100% – 0 0 2 25 87 70% – 757 11.247 20% – 5 1.247 toilets per day.470 5. Annex16 for calculations leading to this graph.
figure 3.PERCENT Ja 100 – 120 – 140 – 20 – 40 – 60 – 80 – 0– 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 m PERCENT figure 3. A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes See Volume 2. Annex 18. Ja m M M anip m eg ur u ha & Ka laya Ar sh un m ac Pu ir ha l P nja ra b de sh Bih A ar Ra ssa ja m Na stha g n Jh alan ar kh d an Or d Ka is Ut rna sa ta ta C ra ka M hh kha ad att nd hy isg a Pr arh ad es h M An ah Ind dh ara ia ra sh Ut Pr tra ta ad r P es Ta rad h m es il N h Hi m ac G adu ha uj l P ara ra t de sh W es G t B oa en Ha ga rya l Tri na M pur izo a ra Ke m ra Sik la kim 102 128 m Nag u & alan Ka d Jh shm ar kh ir an d Bih M a an r ip Ar As ur un sa ac m ha Or l P iss Ch ra a ha de tti sh Ra sgar ja h Ka stha rn n Ut ta ata ra ka kh an d W es Ind t B ia U M ttar en ad P ga hy rad l a Pr esh An Me ade dh gh sh ra ala M Pra ya ah de ar sh as ht ra Ta Go m il N a Hi m ac G adu ha uja l P ra ra t d Ha esh rya Tri na pu Pu ra M njab izo ra Sik m ki Ke m ra la .16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC 42 100 – 120 – 20 – 40 – 60 – 80 – 0– 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 Coverage of BPL IHHL under TSC Coverage of APL IHHL under TSC See Volume 2.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC The IHHL coverage for each district is given in Volume 2. Annex 19 for calculations leading to this graph. Annex 20 for calculations leading to this graph.
18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC School toilet progress IHHL progress 23 figure 3. Annex 21 for calculations leading to this graph. Comparison of coverage of IHHL and school sanitation under TSC Figure 3. eg h Na alay ga a M lan Hi W an d m es ip Ja ach t Be ur m al ng m Pr a u l & ade Ka sh sh m ir Ut ta Bih ra ar kh an d Go A a Ra ssam jas Jh th ar an kh An an dh d ra Ind Pr ia Ar ad un es ac ha Or h Ut l Pra issa ta de rP s ra h de Tri sh p M P ura ah un a ja M Ta rash b ad m tr hy il N a a Pr adu ad e Ch Har sh ha ya tti na sg ar Ke h Ka ra rn la a M taka izo ra Sik m k Gu im jar at eg h Na alay ga a M lan Hi W an d m es ip Ja ach t Be ur m al ng m Pr a u l & ade Ka sh sh m ir Ut ta Bih ra ar kh an d Go A a Ra ssam jas Jh th ar an kh An an dh d ra Ind Pr ia Ar ad un es ac ha Or h Ut l Pra issa ta de rP s ra h de Tri sh p M P ura ah un a ja M Ta rash b ad m tr hy il N a a Pr adu ad e Ch Har sh ha ya tti na sg ar Ke h Ka ra rn la a M taka i zo ra Si k m k Gu im jar at A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 43 . See Volume 2.M M 100 120 20 26 46 49 51 53 55 55 59 61 66 78 80 81 87 90 90 91 91 93 94 94 95 98 98 99 99 100 100 108 100 98 100 109 108 87 PERCENT 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 26 31 31 9 51 53 15 20 59 48 61 74 66 38 32 54 62 36 26 59 59 60 72 54 45 46 99 102 99 98 97 98 95 94 94 91 97 93 91 90 90 87 81 80 78 55 55 91 73 49 46 PERCENT 40 60 80 0 Coverage of school sanitation under TSC figure 3. Annex 22 for calculations leading to this graph.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC See Volume 2.19 shows the coverage of school sanitation vis-à-vis household sanitation coverage.
21). M Goa izo ra Sik m k Ar P im un Me unj Ja ach gha ab m al la m Pr ya u & ade K s Hi Utt ash h m ar m ac ak ir ha ha l P nd r Na ade ga sh l M and an Ra ip ja ur Ka stha Ch rna n h t Ut atti aka ta sg r P ar ra h de s Ke h M Tam ra ad l hy il N a ad a W Pra u es de t B sh en As gal An sa m dh ra In Pr dia Jh ade ar sh kh an d Bih ar Or is M Gu sa ah jar ar at as h Ha tra rya Tri na pu ra sh m ir Go M Bih a eg a ha r M laya Ut an ta ip ra ur kh a Pu nd Jh nja Hi W arkh b m es a ac t B nd ha e l P ng ra al d An dh A esh ra ss Pr am a Ra des jas h Na tha ga n Ar un lan ac ha In d l P di ra a de s Ut Or h ta r P iss ra a d Tri esh Ha pur rya a Ch K na ha er t al Ta tisg a m arh il N a Gu du jar K M arna at ah ta ar ka as M ad Mi htra hy zo a ram Pr ad Gu esh jar at 122 .191 RSMs and 139 PCs. overall.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 figure 3. Coverage of Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation under TSC A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes The TSC has sanctioned 4.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC 44 Ka 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 0 0 0 9 11 13 14 31 36 44 57 68 72 76 77 88 106 122 152 157 191 200 294 302 346 371 493 936 1.Ja m m u & 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 PERCENT figure 3. See Volume 2. Annex 24 for calculations leading to this graph. Annex 23 for calculations leading to this graph.842 Establishment of RSMs/PCs under TSC See Volume 2. 5.046 PCs have been set up across the country (Figure 3.214 RSMs and 3.
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
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).
figure 3.22: Number of villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up
18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 WORK/RS TAKEN UP
See Volume 2, Annex 25 for calculations leading to this graph.
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.
sh Na Go ga a lan Ja Sik d m m Mi kim u zo & r K am M ash eg mi ha r la Pu ya nj M ab an ip ur Ut ta Bih ra ar kh An a dh K nd ra era Pr la ad e W As sh es sa t m Ta Ben m ga il l Jh Nad ar u kh an Tri d pu r Hi m Ka Oris a ac rn sa ha at a Ch l Pra ka ha de tti sh s Ra gar jas h th M Gu an ah jar ar at as M ad Ha htra hy ry a a Ut Pra na ta d r P es ra h de sh In di a
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in Scaling Up Household Coverage
ACCELERATION RATE SCALE 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
7.0 7.1 128 99 102 113 8.3 2.0 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.0
See Volume 2, Annex 26 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.5.2 Reaching the Poorest
figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
APL IHHL progress
See Volume 2, Annex 27 for calculations leading to this graph.
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).
M M anip m eg u u ha r & Ka laya Ar sh un m ac Pu ir ha l P nja ra b de sh Bih A ar Ra ssam jas Na tha n Jh gala ar nd kh an d Ka Oris rn sa Ut ta ata Ch rak ka M ha ha ad tt nd hy isg a Pr arh ad es h M ah Ind An dh ara ia s r Ut a P htra ta rad r e Ta Prad sh m es il N h Hi m ac G adu ha uj l P ara ra t de sh W es G t B oa en Ha gal rya Tri na M pura izo ra m Ke ra Sik la kim Ja m
BPL IHHL progress
27 14 28 41 31 6 36 9 45 20 46 44 49 46 51 39 53 52 57 48 59 60 60 58 64 51 71 65 80 90 83 93 86 64 90 50 92 97 96 97 97 99 97
24 29 26
Pr ad M esh an ip Ke ur ra Tri la pu ra Ja m Go m a u & Bih Ka ar sh m Pu i r nj a A b Na ssa ga m M land Ut iz ta ora ra m kh an Si k d Jh k ar im kh an O d An Ra ris dh jas sa ra th a M Pra n ah de s a M rash h eg tr Ka hala a rn ya at ak Ut ta In a rP d i M Wes rade a ad t sh hy Be a ng Ch Pra al ha de t sh Ta tisg m ar il N h Ha adu Hi ry m ac G ana ha uj l P ara ra t de sh
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement
7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
6.2 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 54 46 36 52 38
See Volume 2, Annex 28 for calculations leading to this graph.
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). figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGf Districts and Non-BRGf Districts
67 57 68 72 68 59 71 66 72 71 74 84 80 75 83 71 85 76 86 66 89 100 89 70 94 88 95 97 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
120 PERCENT 80 60 40 20 0
33 22 82
IHHL coverage in BRGF districts
See Volume 2, Annex 29 for calculations leading to this graph.
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.
ha Bih tti ar sg un a ac Or rh ha l P issa ra Ra des jas h An Jh tha dh ark n ra ha Pr nd ad e As sh M sa eg m Ka hala rn ya Ja at m a m u Pu ka & n K ja M Utta ashmb ad ra hy kh ir a a M Pra nd ah de ar sh as ht ra In di Ut Gu a ta r P jara t r Na ade ga sh Ta m lan il N d M adu an H ip W ary ur Hi m es an ac t B a ha en l P ga ra l de s Ke h M ral izo a ra Sik m k Tri im pu ra
IHHL coverage in non-BRGF districts
62 69 62 72 63 71 65 47 66
Pu eg njab ha M lay an a Ra ipu jas r Ar un th a ac ha Ker n l P ala ra Hi d m ac G esh ha uja l P ra ra t M desh i zo Ha ram rya M Tr na M ah ip ad ar ur a a An hya sht Pr r a dh a ra de Pr sh ad es Si k h Ka ki Ut rna m ta tak ra kh a an Ta In d Ch mil dia h N Ut atti adu ta sg r P ar ra h de sh W es Go tB a en g As al sa m Ja Or m iss m a u & Bih Ka ar Jh shm ar k ir Na han ga d lan d M
Ja ha l
0 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 100 120 40 60 80
22 33 35 39 35 45 54 52 36 59 60 65 65 67 58 67 68 63 68 69 71 70 74 65 75 83 79 80 73 80 81 86 82 64 0 62 0 0 0 0 84 90 94 87 96 99 100 100 100
Ar un ac
48 NGP coverage in BRGF districts
0 0 0 0 36
NGP coverage in DPAP districts Average IHHL coverage in DPAP districts
0 3 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 0 2 3 3 20
See Volume 2, Annex 32 for calculations leading to this graph. NGP coverage in non-BRGF districts
0 0 11 4 8 6 1 6 9 6 7 6 8 8 20 15 15 18 16 7 16 16 22 21 34 38 14 12 42
See Volume 2, Annex 31 for calculations leading to this graph.
See Volume 2, Annex 30 for calculations leading to this graph.
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGf Districts and Non-BRGf Districts
figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts
figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts
NGP coverage in non-DPAP districts Average IHHL coverage in non-DPAP districts
54 57 86 100
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 3 0 3 2 3 6 5 0 5 7 6 4 7 6 8 5 9 0 9 0 11 0 16 24 16 5 19 17 21 20 21 25 27 6 29 0 73 51 94 85 100 100
As s Ka am sh M m an ir ip Ar Pu ur un nj a ac ha Bi b l P ha ra r de s Or h Ra iss Ut ja a ta sth Ch r Pra an ha de tti sh s M ad M garh hy izo An a ra dh Pra m ra de Ut Pra sh ta de ra sh k Jh han ar kh d a T nd M ripu eg ra Hi ha m ac H laya ar ha y l P an ra a de s In h di Ta Guj a m a W il N rat es ad tB u Ka eng rn al Na atak M ga a ah la ar nd as ht r Ke a ra Sik la kim B ar ihar kh a Ch O nd ha ris tt sa Ar un R isga aja rh a M cha sth ad l P an hy rad a Pr esh ad e A sh Ka ssa rn m An Me ata dh gh ka ra ala Pr ya Ja ad m e m u Pun sh & Ka jab sh m ir Ut ta Ind ra ia kh a Gu nd jar N Ut ag at ta ala rP n ra d M des Ta an h m ip W il N ur es ad tB u e H ng Hi Ma ary al m h an ac ar ha ash a l P tr ra a de s Ke h ra M izo la ra Sik m k Tri im pu ra
Pr ad M esh an M ipu i zo r ra Pu m nj Ra jas ab Ja th m a m u As n & sa Ka m Ka shm rn ir at ak Or a iss Ut ta Bi a r P ha ra r d An dh Tr esh ip ra u Ch Pra ra ha de tt sh M Jh isga ad ar rh hy kh a P an Hi Utt rad d m ar es ac ak h ha ha W l Pra nd es de t B sh en ga M In l eg dia h Na ala ga ya Ta m la M il N nd ah a ar du as h Gu tra j Ha arat rya n Ke a ra Si k l a ki m
and one state have won the award so far. figure 3. Annex 33 for calculations leading to this graph.512 1.5.097 8. 49 Ja m Ar mu Ma un & nip ac Ka ur ha sh lP m ra ir de As sh M sam iz Na oram M gala eg nd ha la Pu ya nj Tri ab pu Or ra is Sik sa kim Ra Biha ja r Jh sth Ut arkh an Hi m tar an ac ak d ha h a l Ch Pra nd ha des tti h Ka sga rn rh at a Ke ka Ha ral W a An es rya dh t B na ra en U P ga M ttar rade l ad P sh hy rad a Pr esh ad e Gu sh Ta m jara M il N t ah a ar du as ht ra In di a Ut Miz ta or r P am r Ra ade jas sh th Gu an Ar un ja a T ra M chal ripu t ad P hy rad ra a e Ch Pra sh ha des tti h sg ar h Bih An dh Pu ar ra nj P a Ut rad b tra es kh h an Or d Ha issa ry M ana an ip ur Ja W m es Ind m t B ia u & eng Ka al sh m Hi Jh Ass ir m ar am ac ha kha l P nd r Na ade ga sh M la M egh nd ah ala a y Ta rash a m tr a il Ka Nad rn u at ak Ke a ra Sik la kim .000 NO. only 40 percent of the applicants won the award. 165 blocks.31).000 10.1 Number of NGP Winners At the national level. 3.31: NGP GPs.387 24 31 50 63 12 14 96 2 figure 3. More than 22. In total. Sikkim is the first state to have achieved Nirmal status with 100 percent access to sanitation facilities in homes and institutions.30). 10 districts.087 207 225 418 520 113 155 120 80 60 40 20 0 See Volume 2. This may be due to a weak monitoring system at district and state levels.000 0 See Volume 2. 22. The receipt of NGP at the national level is a good indicator for measuring the achievement of total sanitation status.618 NGPs had been awarded by 2009.041 1.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States 100 PERCENT 46 100 44 39 20 19 12 20 21 22 25 27 28 32 32 36 39 40 40 43 45 51 60 63 64 65 68 85 1. OF NGPs 20.000 15.443 GPs (Figure 3.A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3.132 870 1.670 845 989 2.000 5. by State 25.6.6 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. 22.443 164 198 521 1. Annex 34 for calculations leading to this graph. 3.4 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.
2 2.6 9.0 1.2 10.3 2. Annex 35.0 .0 6.0 16. figure 3.6 30.1 0.1 120 100. Tamil Nadu.1 2.1 15.8 5. Madhya Pradesh.8 0.3 0.7 4.1 5.2 6.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes States such as Maharashtra.1 2. the percent achievement of NGP is less than 10 percent against the total number of GPs. Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have received the maximum number of awards. Annex 36 for calculations leading to this graph. The district-wise distribution of NGP awards is given in Volume 2.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats NGP COVERAGE (%) 79.0 31.2 NGP Winners versus Total Number of GPs At the national level.0 16.4 0.9 1.32: NGP State-wise Status (%) 3. figure 3.9 100 80 60 40 20 0 See Volume 2.4 16.9 12.5 5.6. 50 an i Ka pur sh m Ar Pu ir un nj a ac ha Ass b l P am M rad Ut egh esh ta al r P ay ra a Ra des jas h th an Bih a An M Oris r sa dh iz ra or Ch Pra am ha de Ut ttis sh ta ga ra rh M Jh kha ad ar nd hy kh a Pr and ad es h In di Tri a p Gu ura Ka ja rn rat Hi at m ac Ha aka ha ry l P an Ta rade a m M il N sh ah a d W aras u es ht t B ra Na eng ga al lan Ke d ra Sik la kim u & Ja m m M 95.
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. To assess and project universal sanitation coverage.7.1 Progress towards Universal Sanitation Coverage Given the current and annual growth rate in coverage. Si M kkim izo r Tri am Hi pu m ac Ha ra ha ry l P an ra a de sh Ta Ker m al W il N a es ad tB u en M Gu gal ah j Ut ara arat ta sh An r d P tra M hra rade ad Pr sh hy ad a Pr esh ad es h Ch ha Ind ia Ut ttis ta ga ra rh k Ka han rn d at ak M Or a eg iss h a Na ala ga ya Ra lan jas d th As an Jh sa ar m Ja kh m a m Pu nd u & nja Ka b sh m ir Go a Ar B un ac Ma ihar ha n l P ipu ra r de sh By 2012 Beyond 2012 51 2008 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 2027 2028 2029 2037 2038 2046 . figure 3. 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.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household) Coverage (Year Wise) 2070 2060 2050 2040 2030 2020 2010 2000 1990 1980 YEAR OF ACHIEVEMENT 2056 2064 2024 2013 2012 Already Achieved See Volume 2. which it plans to achieve in 2012.34).A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status 3. India will attain complete coverage in individual household toilets by 2018 (Figure 3. 3. In addition. India is also committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target.7 Goal The TSC’s goal is to eradicate the practice of open defecation in the rural areas of the country. Annex 37 for calculations leading to this graph.
% Individual Household Latrine Target Achieved 3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4. To recap. the components of the rating scale and benchmarking indicators are presented in Figure 4. of PRIs 52 . % of NGP Panchayats to Total No. of NGPs won 8. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain 5.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking Rating Scale Measures Programme Processes & Outcomes 1. % TSC Budget Spent 2. This chapter is structured as follows: • First. No. Average Population Covered by a GP 6. Financing and Incentives 6.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.1. 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. Strategy for TSC Implementation 2. and • Next. Study findings from the sample districts on individual dimensions are also presented here. Financial Efficiency 5. % School Sanitation Target Achieved 4. Success Rate of NGP Applications 7. figure 4. it presents the results of an analysis between district cumulative score on the rating scale and the benchmarking score to understand if these two factors are correlated and to what extent. it analyses district performance on each of the six individual dimensions of the rating scale in terms of their individual score and if this correlates with the overall performance as represented by the benchmarking score and the extent of correlation. Monitoring System Benchmarking Measures Programme Results 1. Institutional structure and Capacity 3.
6. also perform well in terms of TSC results which are captured by the benchmarking model. Strategy for TSC Implementation Institutional Structure and Capacity Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Financing and Incentives Monitoring System Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale 83 PERCENT 60 27 27 28 40 10 20 0 15 18 33 40 80 – Benchmarking score percent 60 – Average benchmarking score =52% o Gumla 40 – o Junagadh Bi-variate Correlation 20 – Correlation is significant at 0. This means that districts that do well on six components required for scaling up and sustaining sanitation. 4.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and Rating Scale (Cumulative) CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE ON RATING SCALE Component 1.01 level (Pearson Correlation . a strong positive correlation was found between district performance on the benchmarking model and rating scale. rit sa Va r Ju lsa na d ga d Jo h Dh rh en at ka n Gu al Sr m ika la ku Be lum gu sa Vi B rai ru ika dh n an er a M gar W ain es p t T ur rip i ur a Ak Su ola rg Sh uja im og a Ba Si rd rsa ha m an Ha Rew m a Ko irpu l r Ea hap st u Sik r Ko kim tta ya m Am 55 58 58 67 80 73 78 o Virudhanagar o Valsad o East Sikkim o Rewa o Surguja o Hamirpur o Kottayam o West Tripura o Bikaner o Akola o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal o Srikakulum o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.436 o Amritsar 0– 0 20 40 60 80 100 Total rating scale percent Average rating scale =59% 81 o Kolhapur o Sirisa Shimoga o o Bardhaman 83 85 85 Mean = 59% 89 90 100 95 53 . 2.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4. 5. and vice versa. 3.661**) In the sample districts.
5.01 level (Pearson Correlation .A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4. Therefore. As can be seen from the graph above. budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit – community-level engagement. in sample districts.1 Correlation between District Strategy Score and Benchmarking Score STRATEGY FOR TSC IMPLEMENTATION Component 1.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation 4. phasing. appropriate technology Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale 100 100 80 PERCENT 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 80 – o Virudhanagar o Surguja Average benchmarking score =52% o Gumla 40 – o Junagadh o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal 20 – o Amritsar 0– 0 20 40 o Srikakulum o Mainpuri o Bikaner o Akola Benchmarking score percent 60 – Bi-variate Correlation Correlation is significant at 0. 3. districts that have a well-defined strategy for TSC implementation perform better in terms of programme results. there is a strong positive correlation between the performance on strategy for TSC implementation and TSC results as indicated by the benchmarking score. 2.2.660**).436 Average strategy scale =57% 60 80 100 Strategy score (percent) 90 o Kolhapur o Sirisa Shimoga o o Bardhaman 95 95 Mean = 57% 100 120 . 54 na ga Am dh rit s Va ar Be lsad g Sr usa ika ra ku i lu m Dh Jorh en at ka n Vi Gu al ru dh ml an a a Bik gar an Su er rg M uj ain a pu r Ak i Ha ol W mir a es t T pur rip ur a Ea Rew st Sik a Ko kim lh Sh apu im r Ko og tta a ya m Ba S rd irs ha a m an Ju 15 20 30 40 40 50 60 60 60 80 70 80 100 90 o Valsad East Sikkim o o Rewa o Hamirpur o West Tripura o Kottayam R Sq Linear = 0. post-construction incentive. TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group A well-defined strategy with goal. and vice versa. 4.
A strategy can signal priorities. the TSC seeks to be community-led and demanddriven rather than target-led and supply-driven.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. However. As can be seen from Figure 4. budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists Strong political and administrative will to implement at different levels TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments 4. given the time and resources available. it is observed that the implementation tends to be target-driven and goals set by implementation agencies are not realistic. 4. despite the progress in developing a shared understanding of the TSC guidelines within the core team. budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists A strategy is required to implement the TSC as a people’s campaign.2. and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. prioritise implementation in terms of geographical areas. there is a lack of needed strategy and planning to move from paper to the ground.2. in only half of the sample districts.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. On the other 55 . In these districts. phasing.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4. and design solutions for problems such as behaviour change to end open defecation and scarcity of water/space. the NGP features prominently with many districts aspiring to Nirmal status as a result of the TSC. populations and resources. assign roles and responsibilities.2. Ensuring the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up. According to programme guidelines. phasing. 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.2. In terms of the goal. terrain and capacity existing in that state/district.2 Well-defined strategy with goal. figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for TSC Implementation (n=22) TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit Well defined strategy with goal.2. in 89 percent of the sample districts. senior district-level officials share this understanding of the TSC framework and principles.2.
although the structures are largely in place. this vision is not uniformly shared at sub-district implementation levels.2. Therefore. and • Regular monitoring and review. • Creating an enabling environment for achievement of this goal through sensitisation and orientation of all stakeholders involved in the programme.2. and even if meetings are held regularly. toilet usage has been a part of Sikkim’s culture but many toilets used were unsafe or unimproved sanitation. the DWSM is the coordinating body for sanitation. A visit by the Secretary. with GPs taking the lead in implementation.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes hands. It was decided to focus the TSC programme to achieve Nirmal status in a mission mode. As a result. although the core team understands the TSC principles and programme framework. study findings show that there is scope to improve interdepartmental coordination. • Flexibility in mobilisation and demand creation. 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. 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. post-construction incentive.2. 56 . 4. the TSC project in East Sikkim focused on promoting safe sanitation facilities. all 45 GPs. these are not being transmitted through the different levels of implementation up to the village level. Between 2002-07. 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. At the district level. As far as results are concerned. we find that this is highly correlated with positive results on the ground (Box 3). Sikkim became the first state in the Indian Union to win the NGP at the state level in 2008.3 TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments In more than half of the sample districts.5 TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit – community level engagement. This could be because the frequency of meetings varies across the sample districts. DDWS.2. However. have been awarded the NGP including the district. based on information of district officials. the district achieved nearly 90 percent household toilet coverage. 4. • Securing political and administrative will to achieve this goal at all administrative levels. Box 3: Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim Traditionally. sanitation in some cases is the last agenda point as the DWSM is mainly focused on water supply.4 Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels In 43 percent of the study districts. Based on interaction with stakeholders during the district visits.2. in districts that have developed a well-defined strategy for implementation suited to their context. we find that there is a good understanding of TSC principles among the core team members at the district level. the use of this arrangement for coordinating implementation remains a challenge. in some districts. 4.2. • Facilitating linkages with the open market for supply of sanitary products and services. The key features of the district strategy included: • Common goal of becoming Nirmal and thereby contributing to the state’s vision of becoming the first Nirmal Rajya in the country. proved instrumental in galvanising the state to achieve Nirmal status and this goal was also adopted at the district level.
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.01 level (Pearson Correlation . The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments 5.1 Correlation between District Institutional Structure and Capacity Score and Benchmarking Score II. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND CAPACITY Component 1. Village-level institutions are set up and are effective 120 100 80 PERCENT 30 40 0 Am r Ju itsa na r ga d J h Dh orh en at Sr ka ika na ku l lu m Va lsa Gu d Be ml gu a sa Vi Ma rai ru in dh pu an ri ag Bik ar an e Ak r Ko ola lh a Sh pu r Ea imo g s W t Sik a es t T kim rip u Su ra rg uj a Ha Rew m a Ko irpu tta r ya m Ba S rd irs ha a m an Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale 100 Mean = 62% 90 95 80 80 50 60 60 70 90 95 0 20 0 15 20 20 20 20 60 40 80 – o Kolhapur Sirisa o Shimoga o o Bardhaman o Virudhanagar o Valsad Benchmarking score percent 60 – Average benchmarking score =52% o Gumla 40 – o Junagadh o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal 20 – o Amritsar 0– 0 20 40 o Srikakulum o Mainpuri East Sikkim o Surguja o o Rewa o Hamirpur o Bikaner o West Tripura Kottayam o o Akola Bi-variate Correlation R Sq Linear = 0. Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block levels (e. 100 100 57 .688**) As can be seen from the graph above.. cluster. Therefore.3.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity 4. The nodal agency is functional and effective 2.g. habitation) for implementing the programme effectively 4. the sample results show that districts that have an effective nodal agency. and vice versa. GP. dedicated and well-staffed units for TSC at different implementation level and capacitated village-level institutions perform better in terms of programme results. A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at the district level and is effective 3.474 Average infrastructure scale =62% 60 80 100 Institutions score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0.
cluster. 58 . habitation) for implementing the program effectively 4.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.3. Day-to-day operations are undertaken by a nodal officer supported by a TSC cell. As a result of having recently taken over charge. ability to monitor programme progress and make revisions as needed.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and Capacity (n=22) Nodal agency is functional and effective Village level institutions are set up and effective A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective Nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block level (ex.3.3.2 A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective In over two-thirds of the study districts. GP. figure 4. an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC. Institutional frameworks should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. 4. This was the norm except in cases where there was a recent shift in terms of the nodal agency at the state level.2. To effectively scale up and sustain TSC outcomes. Typically.1 Nodal agency is functional and effective In over two-thirds of study districts. the DWSM is the overarching policy-making body. a nodal agency for TSC implementation was found to be functional and effective. it was found that a dedicated unit for the TSC was set up at the district level. district-level officials were not very well-informed regarding TSC implementation and progress.2. as outlined in the Kolhapur example in Box 4. budgetary allocations to effectively implement programme activities.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. institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Capacity refers to the availability of skilled human resources for TSC implementation.
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. This consists of three consultants (for communications. In some cases. However.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. the CEO as Vice-Chairperson and line department heads as members.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment Box 4: Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from Kolhapur At the district level.3. In nearly half of the study districts. GP habitation) for implementing the programme effectively . Village Panchayat. • Coordinate IEC campaign – on its own. 4. The CEO of the Zila Parishad is the Chairperson with the Deputy CEO as member secretary.3. As mentioned earlier under the Strategy component.4 Nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments Effective inter-departmental coordination is observed in only half of the study sample districts. • Undertake training of trainers and coordinate cascade events at sub-district levels. a DWSM has been set up as a policy-making body. coordinates day-to-day operations. it was also observed that motivators are provided with a monthly stipend.2. 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.2. Effectively.2.3. with the Zila Parishad President as Chairperson. GP members and the Village Water and Sanitation Committee take up activities 59 . the TSC is coordinated by the Taluka Panchayat Officer. boarding and lodging during field visits and arrangement of a vehicle to enable them to travel to the field. Effective village-level institutions are reported to be found in 57 percent of the sample districts. At the block. The Deputy CEO. 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). The District Water and Sanitation Committee (DWSC) is an executive body which reviews and provides implementation support. it was reported that adequate staff and capacity was not available at the block and sub-block level to implement the programme effectively. 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). or through blocks and GPs. The BDO regularly reviews the programme and further undertakes regular monitoring visits. and • Prepare reports on project progress for the state/central level.3 Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block level (for example. better performing districts have been able to address this issue by providing incentives to motivators based on outcome achievement such as ODF status. cluster. Generally. The TSC cell has the following responsibilities: • Prepare action plans and monitor project progress. A dedicated sanitation unit for TSC implementation has been set up at the district level. 4. 4. assisted by an engineer.
4. for example. Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy Implementation is phased Demand creation depends on community mobilisation Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised Strategy is implemented at scale Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale 100 100 100 100 90 80 PERCENT 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 Vi an ag na ar ga Am dh rit sa Jo r Dh rh en at ka n Gu al Sr m ika la ku lu m Va lsa Be gu d sa Bik rai W es an e t Ba Trip r rd ur ha a m M an ain p Su uri rg uj a Ak Sh ola im Ha oga m Ko irpu tta r Ko yam lh ap ur Sir sa Ea Re st wa Sik kim Ju ru dh 10 20 25 40 30 40 40 60 60 80 70 80 100 90 Mean = 52% 100 120 . 4. 5.4. line department representatives are included in the DWSC and. Although a toilet is part of the overall design of the house to be constructed under this programme. community-based organisations have also been involved in TSC programme implementation.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Box 5: Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need In one of the districts visited for the study. at the district level. However. Depending on the context.1 Correlation between District Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Score and Benchmarking Score Component APPROACH TO CREATING DEMAND AND SCALING UP 1. 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. related to motivation and monitoring. there is a structure in place for interdepartmental coordination. financing (in some cases) and monitoring. 3. A case in point is that the government is assisting in the construction of a house for BPL families under its housing programme. messaging.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up 4. it was found that. this coordination does not percolate down to the village level. 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. in villages where women’s microcredit groups are functioning well. Self Help Group (SHG) members have been utilised by the GP for mobilising women. 2. therefore.
05 level (Pearson Correlation . The TSC guidelines advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives.28 o Amritsar 0– 0 20 40 Average demand scale =52% 60 80 100 Demand score (percent) Correlation is significant at 0. perform better in terms of programme results.529**) 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.4: Study Districts Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up (n = 22) Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy Strategy is implemented at scale Implementation is phased Motivators are used to the optimal level and have incentives Demand creation depends on community mobilisation 61 . their timing and sequence.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. Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity. and vice versa. Therefore. the sample results show that districts where implementation is phased and the approach is based on community mobilisation rather than upfront subsidy. 4.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 80 – o Virudhanagar o Valsad 60 – Bardhaman o o Kolhapur o Sirisa o Shimoga Benchmarking score percent Surguja o Average benchmarking score =52% o Gumla o Bikaner o West Tripura o Begusarai o Jorhat o Dhenkanal Hamirpur o o Rewa o East Sikkim Bi-variate Correlation 40 – o Junagadh Kottayam o o Akola 20 – o Srikakulum o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0. figure 4.
and • Year 3 – Cover the balance GPs.2 Implementation is phased Sanitation coverage in rural areas of India has been historically low as open defecation is a traditional behaviour. Despite this. the incentive is supposed to be released post construction of a toilet and verification of its usage by the BPL family. social mobilisation has been undertaken using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods based on the 62 . At the time of undertaking the visit. 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. radio jingles and house-to-house visits. Box 6: Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District The TSC programme was launched in Shimoga district of Karnataka in October 2005 but actual operations started the following year in October 2006.4. in half of the study districts. namely BPL families. 88 percent of the 260 GPs in the district had been awarded the NGP. documentary films. 4. in others. For instance.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4. In this context. so after piloting the TSC in 2006.2. Different districts have followed different approaches to community mobilisation. Despite the scale of the sanitation challenge.4. in some cases. public meetings. This emphasises the need to strengthen the capacity to plan and manage the TSC district projects. sanitation programmes in India have relied on subsidy to create ‘demand’ for sanitation. The district is also on track to become completely ODF in 2010. it is found that implementation does depend on upfront subsidy for toilet construction.2. 4. the programme guidelines use the term incentive and this is only available for the poorest of the poor. districts have partnered with NGOs to facilitate this process at the village level. • Year 2 – Focus on the four Malnadu Talukas (hilly regions) where hygiene habits were believed to be more progressive and outcomes could be achieved faster. Instead of subsidy. 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. television spots. By contrast.4. two years ahead of the state goal of 2012.2. Across the sample districts. phasing or prioritisation of implementation activities is reported in less than half of the sample districts visited.3 Demand creation depends on community mobilisation In just over half of the districts visited. In some districts. the programme is implemented by PRI/block representatives and facilitated through motivators. the programme was scaled up in phases as follows: • Year 1 – Progressive and interested GPs taken up (about 30). the TSC seeks to be based on social mobilisation and behaviour change to end open defecation. 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). the TSC seeks to achieve universal rural sanitation coverage and district projects of three to five years’ duration are sanctioned to this effect. various behaviour change communication techniques include folk theatre. The example of Shimoga district in Box 6 demonstrates how some of the better performing districts tackle TSC implementation. In addition.1 Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy Traditionally.
4 Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised In just over half the districts visited. pride. it was reported that motivators were compensated on the basis of performance-linked incentives. and inviting village leaders who had achieved ODF status to share their experiences with those who were in the process. making it one of the first to achieve this feat in India. Haryana. convenience and health costs to induce behaviour change were made. Triggering was matched by dedicated follow-up. Box 7: Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation: A Case Study of Sirsa District In October 2007. As social mobilisation is a time-consuming process. 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. dignity. in many cases. Different messages have been used – health. Box 7 describes the programme approach to scaling up TSC adoption in Sirsa district. The scaling up included the use of various mass media and interpersonal communication methods. torch light processions. Through the effective use of a demand-driven strategy that the motivators created.2. Appeals to issues of shame. the following steps were taken: • Step 1: Village visit by the motivators. working with the community members to undertake a self-analysis of their present sanitation status. At the time of undertaking the visit.4. The district has declared itself completely ODF. drew up a strategy to implement the TSC as a time-bound mission. These included payment of a small fee upon achievement of outputs such as toilet construction. it was found that the strategy was implemented at scale. To this end. reaching out to people from all walks and all ages. and • Step 3: Formation of the Sanitation Committee (Swachhata Samiti) comprising natural leaders who were motivated to change the sanitation status of their village. 277 out of 333 GPs in Sirsa had won the NGP and the remaining GPs are applying for the NGP. with the government facilitating the community to change its sanitation status.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach through trained facilitators.5 Strategy is implemented at scale In 60 percent of the districts visited.4. At the village level. convenience. dignity. 4. The training included participatory tools and motivational songs to inspire the participants to spearhead the sanitation movement in the district. innovative IEC techniques were used such as catchy slogans instead of traditional greetings (Jai Swachhata). recognition and rewards. The motivators were trained as swachhata sainiks through training programmes at the district level. rallies and processions.2. these districts have scaled up the programme across districts. Each team comprised eight to 10 members and was made responsible for five to six villages. privacy. it was found that motivators are being used efficiently. etc. 63 . 4. The major trigger seems to have been the realisation that open defecation was tantamount to community members consuming each other’s faecal matter. Sirsa district. dedicated teams of motivators were created. • Step 2: Motivating students and women to come forward and participate in the sanitation movement. followed by a lump sum upon achievement of community-wide ODF status. Reaching the message to every village in the district through capacitated motivators was one of the keys to this scaling up. In addition.
5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain 4. choice in technology promotion is integral to scaling up the TSC and safe technologies are essential if programme results are to be sustained.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4.5. it is not correlated with the performance on the TSC as captured by the benchmarking score. 5. 2.009 Amritsar o 0– 0 20 40 60 Technology score (percent) Average technology scale =70% 80 100 o Valsad o East Sikkim o Surguja Bi-variate Correlation 64 Benchmarking score percent Although the sample districts have largely performed well on this component as indicated by the mean rating scale score of 70 percent.1 Correlation between District Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Score and Benchmarking Score Component TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN 1. 90 95 Mean = 70% . Multiple technology options are promoted Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe Products and services sourced are easily available Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction 100 120 100 PERCENT 80 40 20 0 m la Sir sa R Ju ew na a ga d Va h l Am sad rit sa W Bika r es ne tT r r Dh ipu en ra k Sh ana i Sr mo l ika ga k Be ulum gu sa Su rai rg uj A a M kola ain Ha pu m ri irp ur Ba Jorh rd h at Ko ama Ea ttay n st am Sik Ko kim Vi lh ru dh apu an r ag ar Gu Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale 90 80 80 80 80 80 80 70 60 60 60 60 60 20 40 60 50 60 70 80 o Kolhapur 80 – o Sirsa o Shimoga o Bardhaman Virudhanagar o 60 – o Gumla 40 – o Rewa Average benchmarking score =52% West Tripura o Bikaner Junagadh o Dhenkanal o 20 – o Hamirpur o Kottayam o Akola o Begusarai o Jorhat o Mainpuri o Srikakulum R Sq Linear = 0. 3. 4. In fact. 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. This is not to say that technology promotion and supply chain do not have a bearing on TSC progress.
the toilet is used for bathing and washing. In some cases. material used for cleansing).5. availability of space and risk of flooding. ground water table level. traps. eco-sanitation). maintenance and final disposal. It also includes provision of masonry services for installation. 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. Examples of demand factors include affordability. By contrast. In contrast. users are free to adopt any technology that they choose.2. terrain.1 Multiple technology options are promoted Selection of sanitation technology options must take into account technical and demand factors. At the implementation level. there are no such cost norms for construction of toilets for APL families and. missing doors. for example. pipes. and preparedness for maintenance and emptying.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. reduced height of walls. soil permeability. ventilated double pit toilet.6). etc.5: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain (n=22) Multiple technology options are promoted Well qualified trained masons are available for construction Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable Products and services sourced are easily available Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe 4. Study findings show that where users have not been sufficiently involved in choosing the technology. the constructed toilets are being used for storage or after covering the pan. sanitary pans. septic tank. they are reluctant to break the habit of open defecation and use toilets. no lining in pits). and sanitary services for operation. and willingness to invest in. a sanitation option. Technical factors relate to physical parameters.) but also existing latrine technology options (for example. technology promotion includes not just separate toilet components (for example. figure 4. demand factors relate to customs and socio-economic conditions and are crucial to the acceptance of. in this case.5. Despite the importance of informed technology choice. This has led to poor quality and/or incomplete construction (for example. hygiene behaviours (for example. assessment findings show that efforts to promote multiple technology options are a reality in less than one-third of the sample districts (Figure 4. 65 .TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.
users have made modifications to the promoted design.2. 4. However. In others. in one district.2. users are removing the water seal trap to convert the toilet into a pit toilet. toilet pits are known as kuiya or small well because they can be as deep as 25-40 feet. 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. 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. However. due to a lack of awareness about technology aspects and their implications for safe sanitation. three different models are found to be in operation: direct purchase from the private market. 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. concrete rings). government sponsored procurement from the private market. 4.5. there were no reported bottlenecks in the availability of sanitary products and services.2 Technology choices promoted are affordable and respond to community preferences In a majority of districts. in all the sample districts. although the first. particularly for BPL families.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22) 70 60 50 PERCENT 40 30 20 10 0 Single model of technology is promoted Informed technology choice is promoted 9 Limited choice in technology options is promoted 27 4. it was found that most of the toilets constructed were single pit model with a pour-flush pan. which constitutes unimproved sanitation. With respect to RSMs. In terms of the supply chain. and RSMs. in very few cases. the cost of the products procured is deducted from the BPL incentive amount. metal shed) and sub-structure (for example. 66 64 . or the pre-fabricated superstructure (for example. in some areas. As a result.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes figure 4. In the case of government-led procurement.4 Sanitary products and services are easily available In nearly all the sample districts.3 Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe Study findings show that. 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. These models are not mutually exclusive and are generally found to coexist.5. technology choices promoted are safe. private supply.2. The model promoted is adapted to fit within the cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families rather than user preference.5. the focus is on affordable technology. However. septic tanks are constructed such that they would not get filled over a life time of use by a family of five members. is the most prevalent and clearly has the largest market share. due to scarcity of water. For example. in the case of APL families.
4.2.5 Well-qualified and trained masons are available for toilet construction In nearly all the sample districts. etc. Bardhaman district report 100 percent household latrine coverage and 137 out of 277 GPs have won the NGP to date. 4. However. in other districts. In a few districts. IEC. are being used) 5. RSMs have evolved into a sustainable alternative delivery system for sanitary products and services (Box 8).. RSMs were reported to cater to a very small segment as buyers were free to purchase from the private market. which can contaminate the environment. The operation of RSMs is undertaken by NGOs and the RSM network combines supply of sanitation products with extensive social marketing. In some districts. there were no problems reported in terms of availability of masons for toilet construction. Additional instalments are asked for on time There are no funding bottlenecks Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability) Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads namely SLWM. all the hardware items are delivered to the household and a trained mason installs the toilet including digging of the pit. however. In terms of performance. Fundamental to the success of the RSM is the support network of motivators. Box 8: An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience In Bardhaman district of West Bengal. 3. In the districts where training was conducted. where there has been no training. there was no specific training.6 Component 5: financing and Incentives 4. 2. there were training programmes being conducted for the local masons while. and issues such as unrealised payment and unsold stock were reported. many RSMs became ineffective. there has been no issue with the quality of the toilets constructed.1 Correlation between District financing and Incentives Score and Benchmarking Score Component FINANCING AND INCENTIVES 1. They campaign door to door to create awareness about sanitation and generate demand. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally 150 125 90 80 80 80 80 PERCENT 60 70 70 75 40 30 20 25 0 Am Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale Mean = 62% 100 90 100 rit sa Jo r Dh rh en at k Be ana gu l Sr sa ika ra ku i Ju lum na g M adh ain pu Gu ri m Va la lsa Bik d an e A r Ha ko m la K irp Vi ott ur ru ay dh am an a Ko gar lh ap Sh ur im og a W es Sirs tT a rip S ur Ea urg a st uj Sik a kim Ba Re rd w ha a m an 0 20 30 50 40 50 70 80 80 100 67 . As a result.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment the experience has been mixed. manifest in the beneficiary contribution for construction of a toilet as per the TSC cost norms. 4. the masons. In most cases.6.5. have constructed less than perfect toilets. Once a household has agreed to have a toilet. in other districts. RSMs are the cornerstone of the district strategy to promote rural sanitation. who are civil workers with no proper training.
given upfront or post achievement. the sample results show that districts where the fund flow is smooth and funding is used efficiently along with incentives for optimal performance.649 Average finance scale =62% o East Sikkim o Rewa Surguja o Bi-variate Correlation o Hamirpur Bikaner o o West Tripura o Kottayam o Akola Correlation is significant at 0.806**) There is a very strong positive correlation between the performance on financing and incentives and sample districts’ benchmarking score. namely. figure 4. 4. etc. SLWM. perform better in terms of programme results. are being used) Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability) 68 . and vice versa. released and spent. etc. school sanitation and hygiene education.6. IEC. Therefore.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated.2 Study findings on financing and Incentives Component 5: financing and Incentives Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. Incentives can be financial or non-financial. administration. This includes costs of activities under different programme components (for example.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 80 – o Kolhapur o Sirisa Shimoga o o Bardhaman Benchmarking score percent o Virudhanagar o Valsad 60 – Average benchmarking score =52% Gumla o 40 – Junagadh o o Begusarai o Dhenkanal o Jorhat 20 – o Amritsar 0– 0 20 40 60 80 100 Finance score (percent) Srikakulum o o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .7: Study Districts’ Average Performance on financing and Incentives (n=22) Additional installments are asked on time Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally There are no funding bottlenecks Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads.
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.2.6.6. 69 . A majority of the districts indicated that there was no shortage of funding for implementing programme activities. are relatively new and there is limited capacity to undertake interventions in this area as yet. 4. a percentage of funding is earmarked for software expenditure. SLWM. the project financial flows are smooth. Many districts reported having unused balances under the programme.6. This can partially be attributed to the fact that certain programme components. for example. Incentives take the form of a cash amount. the motivator gets 10 percent of the household contribution towards toilet construction as a reward for effective motivation. Over and above these national-level mandates. there is a mismatch between the TSC allocation and capacity to absorb and spend the funds.. it was found that incentives have been made available for stakeholders at different levels of the implementation chain as well. etc. are being used) In less than half of the study districts.2. and the rest for hardware and cash incentives to BPL families. 4. such as SLWM. for motivating the people and in the construction of toilets as well as for SLWM activities and sustainability of the initiatives. namely.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. the NGP is an incentive for PRIs to achieve TSC goals. Several districts also reported public recognition and felicitation being instituted as an incentive for exemplary performance. on average.2.6. 4.6. in Jorhat district in Assam. IEC. In addition. 4.2 There are no funding bottlenecks The TSC and NGP provide ample resources for rural sanitation. 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.2.3 Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability In a majority of districts. in just over half of the districts visited. Of this. This indicates that.4 Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4. Funds are used for software activities.
Therefore.1 Correlation between District Monitoring Score and Benchmarking Score MONITORING 1.01 level (Pearson Correlation .7 Component 6: Monitoring 4. the sample results show that districts with an effective monitoring system are more likely to perform well on the TSC 70 na ga Am dh rit s Va ar lsa Gu d m Jo la rh Be g at Sr usa ika ra ku i lu Bik m an Dh en er k M ana Vi a ru inp l d u W han ri es ag t T ar Ba ripu rd ha ra Sh man im o Su ga rg uj Ak a ol a Sir sa R Ko ew Ea lha a st pu Si r Ko kkim tta Ha yam m irp ur Ju 20 40 30 30 40 40 60 50 60 60 80 – Bardhaman o o Virudhanagar o Valsad 60 – Average benchmarking score =52% Gumla o 40 – o Junagadh o Begusarai o Jorhat 20 – o Amritsar 0– 0 20 40 60 Srikakulum o o Dhenkanal o Mainpuri R Sq Linear = 0. 2. 5.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4. 4.543** There is a positive correlation between the performance on monitoring and sample districts’ benchmarking score. Monitoring systems are available at the village level Monitoring systems exists for block and district levels Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately Monitoring for toilet usage exists Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly Sample Districts’ Score on the Rating Scale Component 100 70 80 70 PERCENT 60 20 20 20 0 0 0 Benchmarking score percent Bi-variate Correlation Correlation is significant at 0.7. 3.295 Average monitoring scale =53% 80 100 o Bikaner o West Tripura o Akola o Hamirpur o Kottayam Surguja o o Rewa o East Sikkim Monitoring score (percent) 70 80 o Kolhapur o Sirisa o Shimoga 80 85 90 100 100 120 Mean = 53% .
the members of the Nigrani Committee would wake up at 4 am and undertake visits to areas traditionally used for open defecation. Monitoring is done on indicators prescribed by the Government of India such as construction of toilets by different categories of households. These checks by the Nigrani Committee helped to facilitate the process of habit formation to end open defecation and switch to using toilets. The responsibility for monitoring at this level rests with the GP-level functionaries. figure 4.2.2 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. for example. a monitoring system to track progress on sanitation exists at the village level. Over and above meeting the TSC monitoring system requirements. Box 9: Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District Meticulous monitoring has played a key role in the successful scaling up of the TSC in Sirsa district.TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment 4.7. 71 . Gram Sewak.8: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22) Monitoring systems are available at village level Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly Monitoring systems exist for block and district level Monitoring for usage exists Monitoring systems tracks both BPL and APL coverage accurately 4. 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. starting with the lowest. Members of the Nigrani Committee were natural leaders of the community who came forward and volunteered for the cause of sanitation. armed with whistles and torches. As proof of their commitment. Panchayat Secretary or motivators. Haryana.1 Monitoring systems are available at the village level In a majority of the sample districts. (Box 9).7. etc. Monitoring should be done by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring should be collected from all levels. construction of school and Anganwadi toilets.
2 Monitoring systems exist at block and district levels In a majority of sample districts. during a village visit by a block-level official. 4. figure 4. the data on sanitation progress are collected by village-level functionaries and transmitted to the block level for review. 72 19 . 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. 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). for example.2.3 Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately In nearly half of the sample districts. Box 10: Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachh Puraskar Rewa district.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. 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. From the block level.7.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes 4. it was found that the monitoring system for TSC tracks and reports both APL and BPL toilet coverage accurately.7.2. 4. on an ad hoc basis 4.7. rather than routinely. 50.2.4 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.000) is presented based on scores given in the peer review process led by sub-division-level officers. The award (Rs. 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. The scope of the award is limited to those GPs that have applied for NGP.7. Madhya Pradesh. 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. The reporting covers the achievement of the current reporting period as well as the cumulative achievement to date.2. on a routine basis Yes.9: finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22) 60 50 PERCENT 40 22 59 70 30 20 10 0 No Yes. However.
sustainability of the change in behaviour is only assured if the corresponding 73 . the processes that underpin scaling up. The processes adopted by the district have a direct bearing on the outcomes achieved. Although there has been an undeniable upward trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage over the last decade of the TSC. 22 districts across 21 states were selected. In addition. Study findings show that better performing districts are not doing different things but are doing things differently within the TSC framework. it is an opportune time to assess the present status. some others have a coverage of less than 30 percent. 1. approach to demand creation and scaling up. At the present rate. and monitoring. 4. approximately five crore toilets need to be constructed. to achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat within the TSC timeframe. As detailed. replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. These qualitative findings were converted into quantitative scores using the rating scale. The processes by which TSC is implemented were divided into six components – strategy. However. national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals.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. there is need for a clear understanding of the present achievements. 3. 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. Sikkim. technology promotion and supply chain. Study findings show that good performance in terms of programme outcomes. While one state. as measured by the benchmarking score. 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. but will take another half a century in states that are lagging behind. 2. has declared itself ODF. National coverage has significantly scaled up to about 60 percent till March 2010. In absolute terms. 5. At the present rate of coverage. the progress towards full coverage and the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state and district levels. Summary and Recommendations 5. Therefore. This means that districts that adopt the right processes are more likely to perform better on the programme.5. In the study undertaken as part of this documentation. it is expected that ODF India will be reached only by 2018 at the national level. These processes were analysed qualitatively using a research protocol. significant acceleration is required in some states to meet the goal of ODF India by 2012.1 Summary As mentioned at the outset. 5. are positively correlated with processes adopted to implement the programme as measured by the rating scale. On the basis of analysis of the secondary data (TSC MIS) and rapid assessment in the 22 districts. there have been significant differences in the coverage between the states. institutional structure. financing and incentives.
As the study has shown. rather than short-term physical target achievement. sustainability of the NGP-winning GPs. for example. To achieve scale and sustainability. 74 . and • Indicators which track long-term sustainability of the outcomes.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes processes are sound. it is therefore essential for districts to understand and adopt the processes in the true spirit. It is. the focus is on current outcomes rather than sustainability. This may include. 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. can drive scaling up and sustainability of the TSC programme. there is a direct correlation between the processes and outcomes. The six components on the basis of which processes have been analysed represent an agenda for action. therefore. to ensure that there are no slippages. now and post 2012. The districts could look at their processes vis-à-vis this template. This is especially true in a behaviour change approach as in sanitation where participatory processes are essential for communities to understand and adopt change. important to include in the monitoring system: • Process indicators for tracking on a regular basis to ensure that the processes are being followed by the districts. This focus on processes. Even in the NGP. Monitoring Sustainability The achievement of any output and outcome is often driven by what is being monitored. and identify gaps which need addressing and weaknesses which require strengthening. making the linkage with inputs and outputs difficult. The NGP monitoring system focuses exclusively and separately on outcomes.
World Bank. 2004. A. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program. RGNDWM. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.F. The World Bank. London: WaterAid. India Burden of Disease Statistics. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply. 2006.D. 75 . An Approach that Works: Community Led Total Sanitation in Rural Areas. New Delhi: The Action Research Unit. Census of India. WaterAid.. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. Tackling the Silent Killer: the Case for Sanitation. New Delhi: Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission. 2006. Ministry of Rural Development Government of India. Discussion Paper. Journal of Water and Health. TARU. The World Bank. 2001. WaterAid. 2007. Financing and Emerging Concerns.xls. and Lopez.. WaterAid. Guerrant. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation Campaign. Sanitation for All? Thematic Overview Paper 20. Nirmal Gram Puraskar: a National Award under Total Sanitation Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply. Global mortality.. Government of India. Haller.. 2007. 2006. 1992. 2007. Diarrhoea as a cause and an effect of malnutrition: diarrhoea prevents catch-up growth and malnutrition increases diarrhoea frequency and duration. WSP . 2008. United Kingdom: WaterAid. Draft Report prepared for WSP.References Bruijne. 2008. G. 1997. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation Campaign. J. L. McAuliffe. 2005. Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats. and de Souza.. Study of Best Practices in Rural Sanitation in India: Working towards an Open Defecation Free Rural India. Murray.L. al. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program. Government of India.org/ hnpstats/files/BOD4.J. 47: pp 28–35. 2005. New Delhi: WaterAid. 2007.A. Ministry of Rural Development. G. Accessed in March 2010. J. 2004. disability. Lancet. 349 (9063): pp 1436-42.. and the contribution of risk factors: Global burden of disease study. New Delhi: WaterAid. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply. Drinking Water and Sanitation Status in India: Coverage. Government of India. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs. C. Available at http://genderstats.. M. R.. Schorling. Netherlands: International Water and Sanitation Centre. 5 (4): pp 481–502. WSP. J. 2008. Total Sanitation in South Asia: the Challenges Ahead.B. Ministry of Rural Development. Sustaining the Sanitation Revolution. Hutton. and Bartram. Dying for the Toilet. et. WaterAid.worldbank.
Joint Secretary Department of Drinking Water Supply. SRTGN Bhawan. Director RGNDWM. New Delhi 110 003 Mr. Hyderabad Tel: 040-23310669 76 . 8th Floor. Paryavaran Bhawan. CGO Complex. Kamal Mazumdar.S. New Delhi 110 001 Tel: 011-23383614 Mrs. CGO Complex. J. Consultant Department of Drinking Water Supply. Paryavaran Bhawan. Department of Drinking Water Supply. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24362106 Andhra Pradesh Mr. CGO Complex. Usmani. Lodi Road. Building Complex. Rajwant Sandhu. Consultant Department of Drinking Water Supply. Advisor Department of Drinking Water Supply. Erramanzil Colony. CGO Complex. Asstt. Project Director. Paryavaran Bhawan. CGO Complex. Raja Sekharan. Government of India. Bharat Lal. Jasmin Shah. Advisor Department of Drinking Water Supply. Minister of State Ministry of Rural Development. 8-9th Floor CGO Complex. CGO Complex.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants Government of India Ms. 247. A Wing. Director Department of Drinking Water Supply. Department of Drinking Water Supply. Urvashi Prasad. Paryavaran Bhawan. Paryavaran Bhawan. Lodhi Road. J. Ministry of Rural Development. New Delhi 110 003 Mobile: 9868358024 Mr. Rish Kumar Kaushik Under Secretary. Mathur. Agatha Sangma. Anjaneyulu. Ministry of Rural Development. Paryavaran Bhawan. vijay Mittal. New Delhi -110 003 Tel: 011-24362106 Mr. Paryavaran Bhawan. Anjani Kumar. CGO Complex. A. Asstt. Consultant Department of Drinking Water Supply. CGO Complex. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24362705 Mr. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24360102 Mr. Room No. New Delhi 110011 Tel: 011-23061245 Mr. B-1 Block. Ministry of Rural Development. Paryavaran Bhavan. New Delhi 110 003 Ms. New Delhi 110 003 Mrs. S. Nirman Bhawan. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24362106 Mr. Paryavaran Bhawan. PR Engg.R. Paryavaran Bhawan. DEO Department of Drinking Water Supply. New Delhi 110003 Tel: 011-24364427 Mr. 195 Krishi Bhawan. Secretary Department of Drinking Water Supply. CGO Complex. SWSW SWSMHRD building.S.
Darrang. Arunachal Pradesh Tel: 0360-2214057 Mr. District Project Coordinator Department of Rural Development Agency. H. 2545031 Mr. Distt. Special Secretary Public Health Engineer Department. Patna. Durg. Singh. A. Division Bhilai.N. Nandura. PH Division. Mini Secretariat. Daya Shankar Mishra. Public Health Engineering Department. 5th Floor. Special Secretary PHED. Public Health Engineering Department. Civil Lines. Golaghat Division Distt. Engineer-in-Chief Public Health Engineering Department. Arunachal Pradesh Tel: 0360-2214057 Mr. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer Department of Rural Development Agency. Vaishali. Itanagar. Sharma. Sudhir Agrawal. Assam Tel: 03713-222199 Mr. Sadullah Jawaid. Director-PMU BSWSM. Gujarat 395 001 Tel: 0261-2465723 Haryana Ms. Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department. Chhattisgarh Tel: 0777-2583126 Assam Mr. Executive Director Communication and Capacity Development Unit. Assam 785 621 Tel: 03774-284763 Bihar Mohd M. Hingorani Chief Engineer. Bilaspur Zone. Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department. Durg. Chhattisgarh Tel: 0771-2331368. Vishweshwaraiya. Chief Engineer Communication and Capacity Development Unit. Sudhir K Agrawal. Kurukshetra. A. Geyum Padu. S. in front of Science College. Neer Bhawan. Circle.National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants Arunachal Pradesh Mr.K. PHED. 2425354 Mr. Desai. Haryana 138 116 Tel: 01744-220756 Chhattisgarh Mr. Distt. Bilaspur. DKS Bhavan. Public Health Engineering Department. Raipur. M. Durg. R. Mantralaya. Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department. Annada Prasad Sarmah. Sumedha Kataria. Chhattisgarh Tel: 0788-2293560 Mr. Hajipur. C-Block. Sahu. Chhattisgarh 491001 Tel: 0788-2331060 Mr. Mangoldoi Phed. Bihar Tel: 06224-260320 Gujarat Mr.K.A.K. Executive Engineer PHED. Innaki Nagar. Raipur. Multi Storey Bldg. Bidhan Chandra Dey. Raipur. Khan. Chhattisgarh Tel: 0771-2331368. Mantralaya. Surat. Chhattisgarh Tel: 094250-22311 Mr. Bihar Tel: 0612-2545705. Golaghat. 145 DKS Bhawan. Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Project. 2425354 77 . Itanagar. J.
Local Self Government Department. Mysore. A. Chief Executive Officer Bangalore Zila Parishad (Rural). Civil Secretariat Chandigarh. Saini. TSC Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department. Kalshetti. Manjula. Kerala Tel: 0471-2325730 Madhya Pradesh Mr. Deputy Secretary & Project Director WSSD. 27 Kusumpti. M. Next District Court. Civil Lines. 161 FF Main Building. Navi Mumbai Tel: 022-27565087 Mr. TSC Coordinator Rural Development Department. Risaldar Nagar. Stanly. Thycand. Chitragupta Colony. Block No. Goldda. Mumbai 400 032 Tel: 022-22023338 Mr. E Block. S. Chittaranjan. P. Mumbai Tel: 022-22846893. Haryana Tel: 0172-2711758 Mr. Karnataka Tel: 0821-2330316 78 . Himachal Pradesh Tel: 01792-223915 Kerala Mr. K G Road Bangalore 560 009 Himachal Pradesh Mr. M. Sudhakar Shinde. Mantralaya. Ashish Kumar. Boulevard Road. Deputy Secretary RDO. Boregowda. State Project Coordinator. Panavila Junction. Road No. Director SATHEE. Distt. Trivandrum. Niraj Kumar. Nipun vinayak. Ranchi Circle. Jharkhand Tel: 9431422165 Maharashtra Mr. FF. Thanvir Akhtar. 2nd Floor. 22831017 Karnataka Dr. Superintending Engineer DW&S. Director & Addl. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat. P. Sudharshan Kumar Soni. H. Solan. S. Vindyachal Bhawan. Government of Haryana. Project Officer Department of Rural Development Agency. Secreatry Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department. Robin George. Bhopal 462 016 Tel: 0755-2572993 Mr. Puran Singh Yadav. 149A. KHB Complex.8. Mantralaya. Sidco Bhavan. Deputy Commissioner Rural Development.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Mr. M. Caveri Bhawan. Dhurwa Ranchi Circle.O. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat. Director (Operations) Suchitwa Mission. Jharkhand 814 133 Tel: 09431735586 Mr. K G Road. Shimla Tel: 0177-2622302 Mr. Belapur. Satna 485 001 Tel: 07672-225449 Jharkhand Dr. Maharashtra. State Coordinator CCDU. Bangalore 560 009 Tel: 080-22240508 Dr. Opp Sagar Theatre.
Murshidabad. Executive Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Department. Gram Vikas Bhawan. Burhampur. Yongda. Girishchandra. Lmphelpat. Bhandari.M. State Coordinator. Lucknow Tel: 0522-228646 79 . West Bengal Mobile: 09830303122 Tel: 033-23582533 Mr. Dehra Dun 248 001 Tel: 0135-2733455 Mr. L. Director Communication & Capacity Development Unit. Chairman Task Force on Total Sanitation Campaign Panchayat & Rural Development Department. TSC Swajal. R. Tel: 01672-234339 Md. Swajal. Sangruru Circle. Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department. Sector-3. Project Management Unit. Dehra Dun 248 001 Tel: 0135-2733455 Punjab Mr. Cheema. Urvashi Poudyal Block Development Officer. Ludhiana 141 001 Tel: 0161-2462735 West Bengal Mr. S. Sikkim Tel: 03599-2141400 Agencies Mr. Punjab. District Coordinator (Sanitation) Murshidabad Zila Parishad. Ishpak. Salt Lake.V. Rural Management & Development Department. Manish Kumar WES Specialist UNICEF 73 Lodi Estate. Imphal. Manipur 795001 Tel: 0385-2457536 Uttarakhand Mr. Public Health Engineering Department. Superintendent Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Department. Deputy Secretary Rural Management & Development Department. Manipur 795 004 Mobile: 0943689025 Mr. D. Community Development Specialist P. KB-18. S. Government of West Bengal.National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants Manipur Mr. Rajguru Nagar. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24690401 Uttar Pradesh Mr. Kolkata. Panchanantala. Mussoorie Diversion Road. 6th Floor. Yishey D.3. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011-24690401 Mr. N. Abhijit Lahiri. D. Dave WES Specialist UNICEF 73 Lodi Estate. Joshi. Imphal.R. Ibomcha Singh. Kwakeiphel Moirang Purel Leikh. Tashiling Secretariat. BAC. Sikkim Mobile: 9434164582 Ms. L. Deputy Director Panchayati Raj Uttar Pradesh. Swamikant Singh. West Bengal 742 401 Tel: 03482-274863 Sikkim Ms. Gangtok. Gangtok.S. Mussoorie Diversion Road. Chandan Sengupta. Jawahar Bhavan. HIG Flat NO.
Christopher Juan Costain Regional Team Leader Mr. Suseel Kumar Water & Sanitation Specialist Mr. Ajith C.Geeta Sharma Regional Communication Officer Mr.A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes Mr. Kumar Water & Sanitation Specialist 80 . Upneet Singh Research Analyst Ms. Manu Prakash Consultant Ms. Rahul Bakare. Prapti Mittal Consultant Ms. Kailash Colony. Arumugam Kalimuthu Senior Program Support Manager PLAN E-12. Bangalore Tel : 09902848844 Mr.org Mr. Kakumanu Arokiam Consultant Mr. Lira Suri Team Assistant Water And Sanitation Program 55 Lodi Estate. Director Rural Grants ARGHYAM 12 Main Indira Nagar. Aravinda Satyavada Consultant Ms. New Delhi Tel: 011-46558484 Mobile: 9868888820 Ms. New Delhi 110 003 Tel: 011 24690488/89 Fax: 011-24628250 E-mail: wspsa@worldbank. vandana Mehra Regional Communication Officer Ms . Mariappa Kullappa Water & Sanitation Specialist Dr.
The objective of the workshop was to review the status of the TSC. The workshop ended with concluding remarks from the Secretary.S. The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the emerging trends in TSC implementation over the last decade. Joint Secretary Mr. On the second day. WaterAid and Arghyam) joined the event to share their insights and map the way forward. representatives from 21 states and three sector partners (UNICEF. the Union Secretary Mrs. Agatha Sangma. T. It was also agreed that enhancing subsidy was not a solution for increasing coverage and usage among the households. of the DDWS participated. Joint Secretary Mr. 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.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. Mathur. The total number of participants was around 85. identify the lessons learnt in the implementation of the campaign. There was also an opportunity to discuss the findings of two rapid assessments undertaken by WSP.M. In addition. From the national level. The workshop was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Rural Development. . Rajwant Sandhu. Ms. 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. 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. 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. Vijay Mittal. Vijay Bhaskar and Director Mr. J. and plan for the way forward to realise the goal of making the rural areas Nirmal a reality by 2012. Based on findings from 22 districts across 21 states. 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. DDWS.
in Web site: www. New Delhi 110 003. Paryavaran Bhawan CGO Complex.in/ . India Phone: (91-11) 24690488.org Ministry of Rural Development Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation 9th Floor.ddws. New Delhi 110 003. India Phone: (91-11) 24362705 Fax: (91-11) 24361062 E-mail: js.org Web site: www. Lodi Road.tsc@nic. 24690489 Fax: (91-11) 24628250 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.Water and Sanitation Program The World Bank 55 Lodi Estate.wsp.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.